2011 (7) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dvocate, for the Appellant. Shri Navneet, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. -  Heard both sides. 2. Shri Bharat Raichandani, learned Advocate for the applicants appeared and submitted that the applicants are providing port services and during the impugned period i.e. October, 2001 to February, 2006, a demand has been raised against them for tran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emands were confirmed against the applicants, therefore, the applicants are in appeal. As the adjudicating authority dropped the demand and Revisionary authority confirmed the demand, therefore, there are two contrary views. Hence, it is a good case for stay of demand at this stage. On merit also, he submitted that the services provided by them are not port services as defined during the impugned ....