NIPPON ENTERPRISES SOUTH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. The appellants are providing photography services. The brief facts of the case as recorded in the order of the lower appellate authority are as follows:

(2.) WE find that the appellant -assessees have filed Appeal No. ST/283/2009 against the order of the lower appellate authority along with the present stay application. The Revenue has also filed an appeal against the same impugned order bearing Appeal No. ST/284/2009 on the ground that the appellant -assessees are not entitled to -ST dated 20.6.2003 and that the dropping of penalty imposed under Section 76 is not correct, legal and proper.

(3.) SHRI C. Rangaraju, learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Department states that since the appellants have collected service tax on the gross value of the service and have paid only a part of it to the Government they are required to predeposit the demanded amount. He also states that Section 11D is very much applicable to the appellant -assessee and further that the time limit prescribed under Section 11A does not apply to demands under Section 11D. He cites the following decisions in support of the Department's case: