2018 (1) TMI 872

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax to the extent the order records as under:- "ii. I, hereby, confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 100,05,78,705 (Rupees one hundred crore five lac seventy eight thousand seven hundred five only), as detailed in TABLE-2 to the Show Cause Notice, which was so deducted/recovered from individual insurance agents/corporate agents as Service Tax and not deposited in the Government exchequer as required in terms of Section 73A(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 during the period 2006-07 to 2012-13 (upto June, 2012), and order for recovery of the same from them under the proviso to Section 73A (3) of the Finance Act, 1994;" 2. The petitioner has also challenged direction giv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s refunded or reimbursed 40% or 50% of the service tax component. This was as per the mutual understanding. Reliance is placed on decision of the Supreme Court in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited versus Dewan Chand Ram Saran, (2012) 5 SCC 306, in support of the contention that mutual agreements are valid and create a bilateral commercial obligation, without affecting the tax liability imposed as per the charging section. Reference is made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Transport Corporation versus Commissioner Service Tax, 2015 (38) STR 673 (Del.) where an identical issue with regard to service tax liability was examined and relying upon the decision in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (supra), the appeal preferred b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ept for direction No. (ii) and direction No. (viii) which extend to the direction No. (ii). 10. Thus, we have a situation where the petitioner has invoked a statutory remedy of appeal before the CESTAT challenging the order-in-original dated 29th January, 2015 on all aspects, except direction No. (ii) and direction No. (viii) to the extent it relates to direction No. (ii). In these circumstances, we do not think it will be appropriate and proper for us to examine the impugned order in piecemeal. In fact, while deciding the writ petition, we would have to examine aspects and issues, which would also arise before CESTAT. 11. However, the issue arises on requirement and mandate of pre-deposit. The order-in-original holds and accepts that ser....