2015 (7) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat petitioner came to be assessed under Finance act on account of service tax and was demanded with a sum of Rs. 6,76,27,578/- for the period 2004-09 by order dated 25.11.2010, a sum of Rs. 1,38,48,158/- for the period 2009-10 by order dated 24.08.2011 and a sum of Rs. 70,71,764/- for the period 2010-11 by order dated 31.08.2012. In addition to service tax, interest on tax amount and equal amount of penalty of tax was also made and demanded from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders, as passed by the Commissioner, the petitioner filed appeals before the Tribunal. Along with the appeals, the petitioner sought waiver of pre-deposit as required to be made as a precondition for the appeals to be admitted. The waiver of pre-deposit applicatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by, directed the petitioner to make the pre-deposit of the tax and interest component. For complying with the said order, a further period of four weeks time was granted. On 08.10.2014, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 4,30,94,956/-. The factum of payment of Rs. 4,30,94,956/- was informed to the Deputy Registrar by addressing a letter on 09.10.2014. Thereafter, once again a letter was addressed on 29.10.2014. Petitioner confirmed payment of a total sum of Rs. 7,87,32,509/- in addition to payment of Rs. 3,75,53,196/- towards interest on tax liability. The petitioner also sought to clarify that there is an excess demand on the petitioner amounting to Rs. 86,89,471/-. Thereafter, as a matter of abundant caution, petitioner also paid a sum of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her hand, learned counsel for the Department, Sri Jalakam Satyaram, supports the order of the Tribunal and submits that there is non-compliance of the order of this Court by not depositing the amount as directed and the same is admitted by the appellant themselves by depositing a sum of Rs. 98,14,993/- on 03.11.2014, though the four weeks time granted by this Court expired on 08.10.2014 itself. Having perused the record, we find that practically there is no dispute with regard to the facts as stated. More importantly, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. There is no specific denial of various payments, which have been mentioned and the calculations, which have been shown with regard to the principal amount of tax and the i....