2008 (11) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Shri V.P.C. Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)].- In terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to pre-deposit the following sums: (a) Towards service tax liability for the period from April, 2002 to March, 2007 Rs. 32,06,783/- and Education Cess Rs. 53,856/-. (b) Interest at the appropriate rate on the above amount under Section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 73. Therefore, longer period could not have been invoked. Even in the order there is no finding with regard to the suppression of facts. He pleaded that the appellants have prima facie a strong case on merits. He also stated that the provision invoked by the learned Adjudicating Authority was not correct at that time. In other words, a deleted provision had been invoked by the Adjudicating Autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....use notice has actually invoked proviso to Section 73. Further, on merits it appears that the appellant prima facie do not have a strong case, as there is no exemption from service tax for advertising services rendered to government departments. The various points raised by the learned Advocate have to be gone in depth only at the time of final hearing. At this stage, therefore we are inclined to ....