Guardian Management Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax
- CitationAppeal No.ST/S/41589/2014 & ST/41326/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's order rests on a single procedural principle: where an appellate authority has dismissed an appeal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition, the appellate forum may, on considering the merits and the partial payment already made, reduce the required pre-deposit and remand the appeal to that authority, directing it to decide the appeal on merits once the revised pre-deposit is complied with in instalments.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI
Appeal No.ST/S/41589/2014 & ST/41326/2014
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.71/2014 (M-ST) dt.21.2.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai]
Guardian Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri P. Ravindran, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
CORAM :
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Honble Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing/Decision : 1.7.2015
FINAL ORDER No.40756/2015
Per R. Periasami
The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Interim Order dt. 18.12.2013 ordered for predeposit of 50% of the total demand of Rs.32,55,796/-. Since the appellant have not complied, the appeal was dismissed by LAA.
2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the issue relates to both construction of service and man power supply service. He submits that they have deposited Rs.1.50 lakhs. He pleaded that appellant outsourced the construction service on the sub-contractors and other service relates to Census Field Work for Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), a government entity. He submits that they have already deposited Rs.1.50 lakhs during the course of proceedings.
3. On the other hand, Ld.A.R submits that major part of the demand relates to man power supply services. The LAA has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of predeposit. Hence impugned order may be upheld and appeal dismissed.
4. Considering the merits of the case, we are of the view that appellant has not made out prima facie case for waiver of entire predeposit of entire demand. However, considering that the appellant paid Rs.1.5 lakhs by T.R.6 challan dt. 4.12.2013, we direct the appellant to make a predeposit of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) in two instalments. The deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- already made by them shall be adjusted against above predeposit amount. The appellant shall comply with the 1st instalment payment by 31.8.2015 and the 2nd instalment by 30.9.2015. Upon compliance, appellant shall produce payment challans before Commissioner (Appeals) who shall take up the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing. The appeal is remanded to L.A.A. in the above terms. The Stay application gets disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(P.K. CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI) JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER
gs 2
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