TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14.11.2012 had confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 65,48,52,240/- against the appellant in respect of the year 2006-07. The said service tax demand had two components. The first component being in respect of alleged repair and maintenance service to the extent of Rs. 49.95 crores and the other component being in respect of alleged business auxiliary service to the extent of Rs. 15.53 crores. 2. Insofar as the component pertaining to the alleged repair and maintenance service is concerned, the Tribunal was of the prima facie view that the service tax demand of Rs. 49.95 crores on this component did not appear to be sustainable. However, with regard to the service tax demand of Rs. 15.53 crores, the Tribunal, prima facie, held that the dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd of Rs. 15.53 crores is on strong footing. As regards question of limitation, since the same is a mixed question of fact and law, the same can be examined only at the time of final hearing." 3. It is on this basis that the Tribunal, prima facie, held that out of the total service tax demand of Rs. 65,48,52,240/-, the service demand of about Rs. 15.53 crores appeared to be on strong footing. However, taking the financial hardship of the appellant in consideration, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 8 crores within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that predeposit of the entire amount of tax demanded ought to have been waived by the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der for admission of appeal. It is ordered accordingly. There shall be stay on collection of dues arising from the impugned order during the pendency of appeal." 5. In the present case, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even in respect of the demand of Rs. 15.53 crores, the Tribunal ought to have taken a prima facie view in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel referred to the provisions of section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and, in particular, to sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof as also to Explanations 1 and 2 therein. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the purported "business auxiliary service" which was allegedly rendered was, in any event, entirely rendered and received outside India and the....