TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the respondent Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeal along with the stay applications. It is the submission of the appellants that the impugned orders are not passed on merits but their appeals have been dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of service tax after 01/05/2006 with interest and penalties. The stay orders were not complied with by the appellants, therefore, their appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the stay orders. 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that their activity amounts to manufacture at site. Therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax by relying on the decision of the Larg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidering the submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants, as the issue involved is of narrow compass and the impugned orders are not on merits, therefore, after considering the stay applications we find that where there is a bona fide belief that their activity amounts to manufacturing and are not liable to service tax, as contended by the appellants, demands only for norma....