TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of service tax of Rs. 58,91,811 and equal amount of penalty. The demand is for the period from April, 2001 to August, 2005 and the same has been confirmed by the lower authority in adjudication of a show-cause notice which was issued on 27-9-2006, which invoked the extended period of limitation on the ground of alleged suppression of fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant has contested this view of the revenue. For the present purpose, the ld. counsel for the appellant submits that, on the question whether the service provider's expenses reimbursed by the service recipient are includible in the gross taxable value for the purposes of levy of service tax is before a Larger Bench of this Tribunal viz., Amit Sales v. CCE [Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E 1995 (77) ELT 514, wherein the fact that conflicting decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal on the same issue existed was reckoned as one of the factors in favour of grant of waiver and stay under section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The ld. Counsel has also referred to a circular of the Board viz., 119/13/2009-ST, dated 21-12-2009, which indicates that the view which prevailed in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STT 13, wherein the aspect of 'undue hardship' as well as the requirement of safeguarding the interest of revenue were considered by the Apex Court in the context of examining the scope and ambit of section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Apex Court held that the word 'undue' added something more than just 'hardship' and that it meant an excessive hardship or a hardship greater than the circums....