TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant ordered to obtain correct surety bond format before President of India. Case adjourned for formalities.</h1> <h3>M/s LAVIRA CONTRACTS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III</h3> The Tribunal directs the appellant to ensure the tenant executes the surety bond in the correct format accepted by the competent authority before the ... Renting of Immovable Property - recovery of service tax from the tenants - appellant submits that the tenant of the appellant is a party challenging the service tax levy of Renting of Immovable Property in Retailer Association of India and in terms of the Supreme Court order the tenant has executed surety bond for the 50% of the service tax demand confirmed and, therefore, stay be granted. - Held that:- On perusal of the surety bond executed, it is seen that it is not in the surety bond format which has to be accepted in favour of the President of the India through the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner. The bond has to be signed in the presence of the competent authority who has to accept the same. Inasmuch as it has not been done, we direct the appellant to inform the tenant to execute the bond in the proper format before the competent authority who shall accept the same, after considering the credit worthiness of the surety - Matter listed for further hearing. Issues: Service tax demand confirmation, Execution of surety bond, Proper format of surety bond, Stay petition listing.Service Tax Demand Confirmation:The appeal and stay petition challenge an order confirming a service tax demand of &8377; 4,37,351 against the appellant. The Adjudicating authority has already appropriated a partial payment made by the appellant towards the demand. The appellant's consultant argues that the tenant, involved in a separate challenge against the service tax levy, has executed a surety bond as per a Supreme Court order. However, the surety bond submitted by the tenant is not in the proper format accepted by the competent authority. The Tribunal directs the appellant to ensure the tenant executes the bond in the correct format before the competent authority.Execution of Surety Bond:The tenant, involved in a separate challenge against the service tax levy, has executed a surety bond for 50% of the service tax demand confirmed. The surety bond submitted by the tenant is on a stamp paper valued at &8377; 100, but it does not comply with the required format accepted by the competent authority. The Tribunal instructs the appellant to inform the tenant to execute the bond in the proper format before the competent authority, ensuring it is signed in the presence of the competent authority and accepted properly.Proper Format of Surety Bond:The Tribunal notes that the surety bond executed by the tenant is not in the correct format accepted in favor of the President of India through the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The bond must be signed in the presence of the competent authority for acceptance. As the current bond does not meet these requirements, the Tribunal directs the appellant to ensure the tenant executes the bond in the proper format before the competent authority, considering the creditworthiness of the surety.Stay Petition Listing:The appellant's counsel requests four weeks to complete the formalities related to the surety bond. Consequently, the Tribunal directs the stay petitions to be listed on 30.09.2014 for the completion of the surety bond formalities. The case is adjourned until the specified date for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
