2009 (12) TMI 693

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ently, the appellant filed a modification application, wherein they prayed for reducing the quantum of pre-deposit to 10% of the penalty amount or, in the alternative, granting extension of time for depositing the above amount of Rs. 50 lakhs. The prayer for reducing the quantum of pre-deposit was not accepted for the reasons stated in our order dated 7-9-2009. However, in the interest of justice, we granted them extension of time for making pre-deposit of the above amount of Rs. 50 lakhs. The appellant was to report compliance on 9-10-2009. Our orders were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in a Writ Petition. But subsequently, that writ petition was withdrawn with the leave of the Hon'ble High Court. Their Lordships, however, permit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the learned Counsel. The show-cause notice in this case demanded an amount of Service tax which was found to have been not paid by the assessee to the exchequer. That was a demand expressly raised under Section 73 of the Act. In their reply to the show cause notice, there was no challenge whatsoever to this demand of Service tax. The appellant only wanted lenient considerations with regard to the proposal for levy of penalty under Section 78. In adjudication of the dispute, the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of Service tax and appropriated earlier payments towards such demand. He also imposed a penalty on the party under Section 78. Before the adjudicating authority, the appellant never raised any contention to the effect that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct that the payments made by them towards Service tax were under Section 73A rather than Section 73. This is a new case being made out by the appellant. 4. It is also on record that, in the earlier modification application, the appellant prayed for reduction of the quantum of penalty for the purpose of pre-deposit to 10% of the amount of penalty imposed on them. That was the main prayer in the pervious modification application. In the present application also, it is one of the prayers made by the appellant. In this scenario, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel regarding the applicability to Section 78 are far from appealing. On the facts of this case, we are not inclined to modify our direction for pre-deposit. 5. In this ap....