2013 (11) TMI 1403

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Vinay Jain, CA For the Respondent : Shri K.M.Mondal, Spl. Counsel PER : S S Kang Heard both sides. 2. In the present impugned order, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand in respect of 2 show-cause notices. The applicants filed application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.2075,64,65,926/- and Rs.283,15,29,750/-, interest and penalty. The demand is confirmed on the ground tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. The main contention of the applicants is that the applicants had approached the CBEC for exemption from service tax and that the Board denied the exemption. However, on subsequent representation, vide letter dated 24.02.2009, the Board conveyed that the applicants are not performing the taxable service of General Insurance but is performing the function of a watchdog and guarantor by banking....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore the demand for the earlier period is not sustainable. 5. In view of the above submissions, the contention of the applicants is that the appeal be heard without asking for any deposit. 6. Revenue relied upon the findings of the lower adjudicating authority and submitted that the applicants are undertaking the activity of General Insurance Business Service and therefore liable for service tax....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7. The applicants were held liable for service tax under the category of General Insurance Business services as provided under Sec. 65(49) read with Sec. 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicants were corresponding with the Board of Customs & Central Excise. Earlier the applicants were asking for exemption from service tax which was declined vide letter dated 05.01.2009. The matter was ....