Jaipur Municipal Corporation vs C.C.E.. & S.Tax, Jaipur I

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal3 July 2015

CitationService Tax Appeal No.58283 of 2013

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a tribunal has conditioned the stay of recovery on pre-deposit of the adjudged duty together with proportionate interest within a fixed time, and the order expressly provides that the appeal shall stand dismissed on failure of that pre-deposit, non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition, including the interest component, entitles the tribunal to dismiss the appeal for failure of pre-deposit.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New DelhiCOURT-IDate of hearing/decision: 3.7.2015Service Tax Appeal No.58283 of 2013

Arising out of the order-in-original No.05/2013 (ST) dated 31.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur I.

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K.Singh, Technical Member

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Jaipur Municipal Corporation .. Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E.. & S.Tax, Jaipur I .. Respondent

Appearance:

None for the appellant

Present Mrs. Suchitra Sharma, A.R. for the respondent

Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G.Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member

Final Order No.52095/2015

Per Justice G. Raghuram:

Stay application in this appeal was disposed of on 5.5.2015 directing pre-deposit of Rs.23,13,742/- along with proportionate interest within six weeks and to report compliance today. Subject to such compliance, recovery of the remaining adjudicated liabilities was directed to be stayed during pendency of the appeal. The order also embedded a default clause to the effect that appeal shall stand dismissed for failure of pre-deposit.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for reporting compliance, it is seen that the Consultant for the appellant B.D. Gargieya & Co. has addressed a letter to the Registry on 29.6.2015 claiming to have complied with the order by depositing Rs.23,13,742/- vide challan No.00581 dated 9.6.2015 through ICICI Bank Ltd. A photocopy of the challan disclosing deposit of the aforesaid amount on 9.6.2015 is also enclosed. There is however neither proof of deposit of the proportionate interest on Rs.23,13,742/- nor any report of compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of the interest component.

3. In the circumstances, there is default in compliance with the order dated 5.5.2015. Hence the appeal is dismissed for failure of pre-deposit.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Technical Member

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