2016 (6) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Satish Kumar, Senior Standing counsel O R D E R 1. The Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction of road and horticulture activities. The Petitioner has in this  writ petition challenged the impugned adjudication order dated 21st April 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax confirming the demand of service tax. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t August 2015 holding that since the Petitioner has already approached this Court, the appeal was not maintainable since the Petitioner cannot avail two parallel remedies against the impugned order simultaneously. 4. The central plea of the Petitioner is that the mandatory minimum pre- deposit of 7.5% of the demand in terms of the amendment in Section 35-F of CE Act in affordable for the Petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs) and order dated 25th April 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 3380 of 2016 (Suvidha Signs Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Union  of  India) concurred with the view expressed by the High Court of Allahabad in Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India 2015 (320) ELT 711 (All) and declined to entertain the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 35 F of the CE....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f delay in filing such restoration application seeking recall of the CESTAT's order dated 21st August 2015. The question of the Court  in the present    petition  interfering with the show cause notices which led to passing of the above adjudication order also does not arise. 8. The question whether the amended Section 35 F of the CE Act will apply to the Petitioner&#....