^" ^-^"^s^ '^•- /Ci'} t;l ^^^, \\ IINNNI HIGH COURT OF CHI^n"18©Ara4^TBILASPWI DxB,: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suail Kumar S^nh^i an^f Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma Petjtioner Writ Petition (T.) Na4123 of2ei1 * National Projects Copstructiw Corporatioo Ltd. NPCC Umted^ 1 Sipat UnSt, NTPC STRP, P.0. . Uyawal Nagar, Sipat - 4^ ^5. ; Distt. Bilaspur, ChhattisggB'h Respondents versus 1. 2. The Cust©m8, Excise and 1 Servtee Tax Appellata Tri&unal, West Block No.Il, R.K Puram, NewDelhi-66 , Commisstoner, Central ExcSse, Customs and Service Tax, Chhattisgarh, Raipur - I, Commissionerate, Dhamtsffi Road, Raipyr ~ 402 001 Pr^ent: ! Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal and Shri Azad Siddique, counsel for the petitioner. - Shri Bhishma Kinger, counsei for the respondents. Writ Petition under Articte 226/227 ofthe ConsAttution of Indla ORAL ORDER (Passed on 1st Augu^, 2011) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.: Heard. 2. PetitSoner National Proje^s ConstruGt©nCpr^ (NPCC) Limited has ffled this petitjpn GhNtenging the valiility M oi'dw daited 28-4-2011 (Annexure P-1) pa^ed in TaxAppeal No.876/2010 by the Customs, Excise and Servtee Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (henceforth the Tribunal'). By the impugned order, the Tribunal hes directed the petjtioner/appellant tp make pre-depo^t of Rs.1 Crore within eight weeks and subjectto syoh compliance, tt further dtrected that there shalt be waiver of pre-deposit of the batance amount during the pendency of the appeal. lr, 3. The Tribunal, after quoting paragraph 7.2 of the order passed by the Adjudicatlng Author'rty, prima facie held that th®vwrk carrfed out by the petitioner/appellant dld not gain any exemptlon uncter law as the reseryoir was construded fbr use fn commercial acliyity, The ^.^:,,r ,.:^1:.:.,... Tribunal has also referred to that part ofthe contract, which saysthat .....:^ -'^ , the taxes shall be borne and paid by the present petittoner and the prinoipal shall not bear any tax liability. The Tribunal, thu@, directed as aboye and time was granted to the petitjoner t@ depostt the amount. 4. Admjtt€|dly,this js an intenm prder Rassed Isy e Trtbunal^and the matter has to be adjudjcated by the Tnbunal by hearing the appeaffinally, The Trtbunal has passed its prcter by reeqrdlng reason and also after considering the findings recorded by the Acgudioatjng Authorityyide paragraph 7.2 ofthe origlnal order. 5. Learned counsel forthe |>^itiqner subrNttedtha|theamount of Rs.1 Crore is huge simount for the petftioner to depostt at onoe before the Trik)ur®l,therefpre, some protecti@n may t^ granted by passing an appropriate order in this regard. f 6. After going throygh the entire facts and circumstances of the case, \ye are ofthe yiewthat there does not appear to be any good ground to jnterfere in the jmpugned order passed bythe Tribunal in n*,^' yf the appellate jurjsdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, liaNe to tee dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. » ^ 7. However, looktng to the stake of the amount dtrceted to be deposited and the arguments adyanced befere ua, libert^ is grantecl^ to the petitioner to fite an appropriate application before the Wbunal praytng modlfication in the impugned order to make th@'ft in a pQsition to comply it as per the directions of the Tribynal, whteh ^iall be decided on its merits in accordance wfth law. ' Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Gopart Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge