2015 (10) TMI 1579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd penalty. 2. In the submission of Mr. Sreedharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, the Tribunal in passing the impugned order has lost sight of the fact that the record also refers to the Chart at page 198 of the paper book which contains the details of the credit availed of during April, 2010 to March, 2011. The break up would indicate that the substantial sum, namely, Rs. 8,766,774/- pertains to services not provided. In view thereof and in the teeth of clear language of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Tribunal has erred in directing pre-deposit of Rs. 1 crore. That is on the footing that the present Appellants have not demonstrated even prima facie as to how the ingredients of sub-rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ie stage need not be interfered with and particularly in the light of the observations and findings in the order of the Commissioner. For these reasons, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. After having heard the learned counsel at some length and perusing with their assistance the impugned order, what we find is that the Tribunal was dealing with an application seeking to waive the condition of pre-deposit. The Tribunal was of the opinion that a prima facie case of total waiver of pre-deposit of the service tax is not made out. In doing that, the Tribunal has referred to the order of the Commissioner and which was impugned before it. The Commissioner after referring the entire material, arrived at a conclusion that the case at han....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l has recorded the prima facie findings that this is not a fit case for complete waiver. We do not find that such findings recorded by the Tribunal do not meet the requirement stipulated by law. The Tribunal at the stage at which the matter was brought before it was not required to render any final conclusion or opinion. Only limited jurisdiction that the Tribunal was exercising was whether the case was fit enough to direct the Public Sector Undertaking not to deposit any amount of the tax demanded and thus, relieve it from the condition of pre-deposit or partial deposit. In doing that the Tribunal has referred to the materials produced. It has not made any detailed inquiry and rightly so. In these circumstances the Tribunal has not proceed....