2024 (9) TMI 1743

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sahu, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. S.K. Meena, Authorised Representative. ORDER DR. RACHNA GUPTA Ld. Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that index has been properly numbered as the appeal is filed in two volumes as specifically mentioned in the index itself. The order under challenge i.e. Order-in-Original dated 05.01.2024 since is running into more....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 07.03.2008. Similarly for Show Cause Notice dated 28.11.2008 the Commissioner in para 50 of the impugned order has recorded that against the disputed service tax amounting to Rs. 5,30,44,996/- the appellant has already deposited Rs. 1,29,00,000/-. Since the amount already paid is more than 7.5% of total disputed demand as stated above. Hence no further amount needs to be deposited as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1.2024 we observe that the first Show Cause Notice dated 07.03.2008 had proposed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 4,28,08,029/- (service tax of Rs. 4,19,68,656 + education cess of Rs. 8,39,373/-). The second Show Cause Notice dated 28.11.2008 had proposed the demand of Rs. 4,01,44,996/-(Service Tax of Rs. 3,86,31,318+ education cess of Rs. 15,13,678/-). The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tain percentage of duty confirmed or penalty imposed. Since the duty demanded already excluded the amount already paid, the said payment is not the subject matter of section 35 F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The only amount which can be set off against the amount of pre-deposit of section 35F is Rs. 45 Lakhs. From the calculation given by the Department it is apparent that the amount of pre-d....