TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, "the Act") against the orders dated 16.7.2015 and dated 12.5.2015 (Annexure A-1 Colly) passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen the entire exercise is revenue neutral? (v) Any other question which this Hon'ble High Court may consider fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is registered with Service Tax Division, Gurgaon vide Registration Certificates dated 1.10.2004 and 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....006-07 and Rs. 85,20,673/- during 2007-08. The said services of M/s Wainwright Industries Inc. were taxable and, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay service tax. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 4.4.2012 (Annexure A-5) for the period 2006 to October, 2011 demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 3,90,11,312/- along with interest and penalties was issued. The appellant filed its reply da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on-compliance of the order dated 12.5.2015. Copies of orders dated 12.5.2015 and dated 16.7.2015 are appended with the appeal as Annexure A-1. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the requirement of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- along with proportionate interest as preSTA deposit as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal was unfair and excessive. 4. Learned....