https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241611 Where an assessee had already discharged a substantial part of the service tax liability under the works contract scheme, the Tribunal considered the remaining disputed demand to be only a small balance and noted that the assessee had not been properly guided when the statement was recorded. On that basis, it directed only a limited further deposit and granted protection against recovery of the balance during the pendency of the appeal. The assessee was required to deposit Rs. 24,000 within four weeks, after which the balance pre-deposit was waived and recovery of the remaining dues was stayed pending appeal. en-us Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Dec 2013 13:07:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241611 Where an assessee had already discharged a substantial part of the service tax liability under the works contract scheme, the Tribunal considered the remaining disputed demand to be only a small balance and noted that the assessee had not been properly guided when the statement was recorded. On that basis, it directed only a limited further deposit and granted protection against recovery of the balance during the pendency of the appeal. The assessee was required to deposit Rs. 24,000 within four weeks, after which the balance pre-deposit was waived and recovery of the remaining dues was stayed pending appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 16 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241611