2024 (4) TMI 1039

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id project started commercial production w.e.f. 02.01.2016. After commencement of production, the appellant accumulated huge losses. These losses were incurred on account of payment of interest by the appellant for borrowings from the banks, promoters and Oil Industry Development Board for operational and working capital requirements. 2.1 DGCEI initiated proceedings by way of issuance of show-cause notice that the appellant was earning income by way of charging/recovering amounts under PRS from the contractors for delay in supply/service contract but was not discharging service tax thereon. 2.2 Therefore, after adjudication, an amount of service tax of Rs.7,90,08,905/- was confirmed along with interest and various penalties were imposed a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad, to say that the amount deposited during investigation and/or pending litigation is ipso-factor pre-deposit and interest is payable on such amount to the appellant in successful in the appeal from the date of deposit till the date of refund. 3.1 He also relies on the following decisions : (i) Pr.Commissioner of CGST & Excise, New Delhi Vs. Emmar MGF Construction Private Limited : 2021 (55) GSTL 311 (Tri.-Del.) ; (ii) Kesar Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Noida : 2022 (380) ELT 319 (Tri.-All.) ; (iii) Allied Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Jaipur : 2022 ( 382) ELT 371 (Tri.- Del.) ; (iv) Raj Kumar Batra Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) - (2024) 17 Centax 73 ....