DREAM LOANZ Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lower authorities have demanded service tax of over Rs. 24 lakhs along with education cess from the appellants for the period July 2003 to December 04. The lower appellate authority has also sustained a penalty on them to the extent of Rs. 25 lakhs under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the appellants that the demand of differential Service Tax raised by the lower authorities cannot be sustained in view of decisions of this Tribunal. It is also pointed out that the entire amount of differential service tax along with education cess and interest was paid the assessee even before issue of the Show -cause notice, a fact admitted in the notice itself. We have heard ld. SDR also.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the entire demand of tax and education cess along with interest thereon has already been honoured by the assessee; only the penalty is outstanding. It appears from the records that the assessee's challenge against the demand of service tax for the period of dispute, which is prior to the latest amendment to the Valuation Rules, is supported by certain decisions of the Tribunal. On these facts, there will be waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty amount.