https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217149 The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the appellant's explanation of misplacement of the impugned order. The appellant was admitted to appeal despite the delay. The interpretation of "programme producer" under the Finance Act favored the Revenue's contention that the appellant qualified, requiring tax payment. The Tribunal upheld the need for a pre-deposit to protect the Revenue's interest during the appeal, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 25,00,000 within six weeks, with the remaining balance waived upon initial compliance. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217149 The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the appellant's explanation of misplacement of the impugned order. The appellant was admitted to appeal despite the delay. The interpretation of "programme producer" under the Finance Act favored the Revenue's contention that the appellant qualified, requiring tax payment. The Tribunal upheld the need for a pre-deposit to protect the Revenue's interest during the appeal, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 25,00,000 within six weeks, with the remaining balance waived upon initial compliance. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217149