Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Pre-Deposit Challenge: Tribunal Partially Allows Set-Off of Rs. 45 Lakhs Against Service Tax Demand of Rs. 13.66 Crore</h1> Tribunal addressed pre-deposit requirements under section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant challenged service tax demands totaling Rs. ... Compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in respect of the disputed service tax demands raised through two Show Cause Notices dated 07.03.2008 and 28.11.2008 - HELD THAT:- The calculation provided by the DR shows the demand of the impugned period was Rs. 13,66,31,566/- i.e. Rs. 8,35,86,570/-in SCN dated 07.03.2008 and Rs. 5,30,44,996/- in SCN dated 28.11.2008. After deducting the amount paid respectively for both the SCN. Hence the proposed demand under SCN dated 07.03.2008 was Rs. 4,28,08,029/- and that under SCN dated 28.11.2008 was Rs. 4,01,44,996/- totaling to Rs. 8,29,53,025/-. This amount is the amount under challenge. As per section 35 F the amount of pre-deposit has to be certain percentage of duty confirmed or penalty imposed. Since the duty demanded already excluded the amount already paid, the said payment is not the subject matter of section 35 F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The only amount which can be set off against the amount of pre-deposit of section 35F is Rs. 45 Lakhs. From the calculation given by the Department it is apparent that the amount of pre-deposit is Rs. 62,21,477/- (7.5% of the demand of duty under dispute). Resultantly, the balance amount is yet to be paid by the appellant for the impugned defect to be removed. One month time is given to the appellant to make good the deficiency of the said amount. Matter be now listed on 13.11.2024. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the appeal filed with two volumes and a detailed index complies with procedural requirements.- Whether the documents filed in the appeal are legible and whether the appellant has a better copy of the documents.- Whether the undertaking required under appeal Form No. ST-3 is properly included in the appeal.- Whether the appellant has complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in respect of the disputed service tax demands raised through two Show Cause Notices dated 07.03.2008 and 28.11.2008.- Determination of the correct amount of pre-deposit payable by the appellant for the appeal to proceed, considering amounts already paid voluntarily during investigation and the percentage mandated by law.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISCompliance with procedural requirements regarding appeal filing and documentsThe appellant filed the appeal in two volumes, with the impugned Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 05.01.2024 running over 100 pages and filed as Volume 2. The index was properly numbered and specified the two-volume filing. The Tribunal accepted this arrangement as compliant with procedural norms.Regarding the legibility of documents, the appellant submitted that all pages are legible but did not possess better copies, as the documents were received from the Department. This was accepted, and the presence of court fee stamps was noted. The undertaking required under appeal Form No. ST-3 was confirmed to be part of the appeal at page 4, satisfying that procedural defect.Compliance with mandatory pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944The core legal framework applicable is section 35F of the Central Excise Act, which mandates a pre-deposit of a specified percentage (7.5%) of the duty confirmed or penalty imposed before an appeal can be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal.The appellant challenged two Show Cause Notices (SCNs): one dated 07.03.2008 demanding Rs. 8,35,86,570/- and another dated 28.11.2008 demanding Rs. 5,30,44,996/-, totaling Rs. 13,66,31,566/-. However, the impugned Order confirmed the demand of Rs. 8,29,53,025/-, after adjusting amounts already paid voluntarily by the appellant during investigation.The appellant contended that it had already deposited Rs. 3,62,78,541/- against the first SCN and Rs. 1,29,00,000/- against the second SCN, which together exceeded 7.5% of the total disputed demand. Hence, no further pre-deposit was necessary.The Department, through the Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR), disputed this, arguing that only Rs. 45 Lakhs had been appropriated as voluntary payment during investigation, which was less than 7.5% of the duty confirmed. The Department filed a calculation chart asserting that the proper pre-deposit amount is Rs. 62,21,477/- (7.5% of the duty under dispute).Upon examination, the Tribunal noted that the confirmed demand after adjusting voluntary payments was Rs. 8,29,53,025/-. The voluntary payment of Rs. 45 Lakhs is the only amount that can be set off against the pre-deposit requirement under section 35F. The amounts paid earlier but not appropriated in the impugned order cannot be considered for pre-deposit calculation.Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was required to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 62,21,477/- as pre-deposit to remove the defect in the appeal. The appellant was granted one month to comply with this requirement.Treatment of competing argumentsThe appellant's argument that the total amount already paid exceeded the pre-deposit threshold was rejected because the impugned order only appropriated Rs. 45 Lakhs as voluntary payment. The Tribunal emphasized that only amounts appropriated in the impugned order can be set off against pre-deposit under section 35F.The Department's calculation was accepted as accurate and in line with statutory requirements. The Tribunal relied on the impugned order's findings and the statutory mandate of section 35F to determine the correct pre-deposit amount.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'As per section 35 F the amount of pre-deposit has to be certain percentage of duty confirmed or penalty imposed. Since the duty demanded already excluded the amount already paid, the said payment is not the subject matter of section 35 F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The only amount which can be set off against the amount of pre-deposit of section 35F is Rs. 45 Lakhs.''From the calculation given by the Department it is apparent that the amount of pre-deposit is Rs. 62,21,477/- (7.5% of the demand of duty under dispute). Resultantly, the balance amount is yet to be paid by the appellant for the impugned defect to be removed.'The Tribunal established the principle that pre-deposit under section 35F must be calculated on the duty confirmed in the impugned order after deducting only those amounts actually appropriated as paid. Voluntary payments not appropriated in the order cannot be set off against the pre-deposit requirement.The final determination was that the appellant must deposit Rs. 62,21,477/- within one month to cure the defect in the appeal filing, failing which the appeal cannot proceed. The procedural compliance regarding indexing, legibility, and undertaking was found satisfactory.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found