TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... B. Balamurugan, AC (AR), For the respondent ORDER The above appeal came up for hearing as per the application for condonation of delay listed in the cause list. 2. At the time of hearing it came to our notice that the appellant has not paid the mandatory pre-deposit envisaged under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as amended with effect from 065.08.2014. On p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that Rs. 79,98,229/- is the amount of service tax payable by appellants. As per the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed an amount of Rs. 47,79,779/-. That though appellants paid Rs. 32,18,458/- towards the disputed amount of Rs. 79,98,229/- the Commissioner failed to take into account the amount paid by the appellant. That though the demand confirmed is Rs. 47,97,771/-, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arried away by the wrong mention of figures in column 13 & 14 of the ST-5 Form. The appeal has been erroneously numbered by the Registry and come up for hearing on the petition for condonation of delay. We therefore consider it fit to give time to the appellant to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit as the appellant was not put to notice about such non-compliance. We take serio....