Bajrang Infotech Systems Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 137/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's order rests on a procedural principle: where an appeal is rejected by the first appellate authority solely because the appellant has not deposited the full amount of the demand as a condition of hearing, and the demand involves an extended period and a question of classification, the Tribunal may direct the appellant to deposit a reduced proportion (here 50%) of the demanded amount within a fixed period, with the first appellate authority then required to decide the appeal on its merits upon compliance.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 137/2013 dated 23/10/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad(Appeals - II & IV]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
Bajrang Infotech Systems Pvt. Ltd. H.No.1-68/3, Prabhat Nagar, DBR Hospital Lane, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 500 060 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s)
Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-II L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500 004 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Mr. Mohd Yusuf, AR For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 11/02/2015 Date of Decision: 11/02/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20299 / 2015
Per: B.S.V. MURTHY
Nobody is present for the appellant and there is a request for adjournment on the ground that they came to know about the hearing only on 11.02.2015. However after hearing the learned AR and going through the records, we find that the issue involved is whether the service of preparation of identity cards, sale of the same for SPSRTC undertaken by the appellant can be classified under Business Auxiliary Service and service tax can be levied or not. The appeal has been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that appellant failed to discharge the entire amount of service tax which was directed to be deposited for hearing the appeal. Taking note of the fact that extended period is involved in the demand and issue involved is one of classification, we consider that if the appellant deposits 50% of the amount, the Commissioner can hear the appeal. Therefore we direct the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount demanded within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance to the Commissioner who after taking note of the compliance shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits. Stay application as well as appeal gets disposed of in the above manner.
(Order pronounced in open court)
(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
iss
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free