TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T Intelligence [DGCEI], New Delhi whereby he dropped the proceedings initiated by show cause notice dated 27.03.2017 [SCN] against the respondent M/s Micromax Informatics Limited [Micromax] and its Managing Director Shri Rahul Sharma. 2. We have heard Ms. Anu Sura and Shri Ayushraj, learned counsels for Micromax and Shri Anand Narayan, learned authorized representative appearing for the department and perused the records. 3. The facts of the case are that Micromax was registered with the service tax department. M/s Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Switzerland [Ericsson] sued Micromax for royalty for use of patents and technologies belonging to Ericsson. The matter was before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and through Interim Orders, D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....my consideration in the matter: (i) Whether the instant proceedings can be continued in the light of the withdrawal of the suit by the parties before the High Court? (ii) If yes, whether the duty demanded in the Show Cause Notice to the tune of Rs. 17,50,38,755/- (Rupees Seventeen Crore Fifty Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Five only) can be confirmed against the Noticee no. 1? (iii) Whether interest is payable in the matter as alleged in the Show Cause Notice? (iv) Whether penalty can be levied on Noticee no. 1 & 2 in the matter? 31. Now I proceed to examine above issues. A. Whether the instant proceedings ban be continued in the light of the withdrawal of the suit b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... released to the respective parties vide order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Relevant extracts from the order are produced below: Registry is directed to release the amounts lying with the Registry to the respective parties as stipulated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of I.A.No. 1698/2018 (as reproduced hereinabove) as well as to release all bank guarantees furnished by the parties within a period of one week. (Emphasis supplied) (iv) As such, no amount stands paid with reference to the amount deposited under orders of the High Court and for which the instant Show Cause Notice has been issued demanding the Service Tax. (v) I also observe that M/s Micromax have paid integrated GST t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s Micromax Informatics Ltd, and Sh. Rahul Sharma." 7. The case of the Revenue before us is that the impugned order is not correct and proper and that service tax should have been confirmed on the amount of Rs.154,79,43,050/- paid by Micromax during the pendency of the suit as per the interim orders of the High Court. It is asserted that the amounts paid were not mere deposits and they were indeed royalty paid to Ericsson and, therefore, service tax should have been paid. 8. Learned counsel for Micromax vehemently supported the impugned order and asserted that it calls for no interference. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides. 10. Ericsson sued Micromax before the High Court. It was the position of the Er....