Kailash Travelling Agencies vs C.C.E. & S.Tax, Raipur

Arising out of the order in appeal No.156 (ST)/RPR/1/2013 dated 13.9.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals),Customs and Central Excise, Raipur read with Stay Order No.54880/2014 dated 4.12.2014 passed by the CESTAT, New Delhi.

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?

Kailash Travelling Agencies .. Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.Tax, Raipur . Respondent

Appearance:

Present Shri Ashish , Advocate for the appellants

Present Shri Amresh Jain, A.R for Revenue

Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member

Final Order No. 50805/2015

Per Justice G. Raghuram:

On 4.12.2014, the stay application was disposed of directing pre-deposit of the assessed service tax liability along with interest thereon within eight weeks and to report compliance by 24.2.2015. The appellant preferred the appeal against the order of the appellate Commissioner dated 13.9.2013 rejecting the assessees appeal for the reasons recorded therein. Our order dated 4.12.2014 records reasons for directing deposit of the assessed liability to tax and interest. Against the order dated 4.12.2014, the appellant preferred appeal in Tax Case No.4 of 2015 before Chhattisgarh High Court. The High Court vide order dated 10.2.2015 dismissed the appeal while granting a further two weeks from 24.2.2015, for deposit of the amount directed vide the order dated 4.12.2014.

2. The appellant has not made the pre-deposit even within the further time granted by the High Court. Ld. Advocate states that appellant has preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court. Be that as it may.

3. Since the order dated 4.12.2014 passed by the Tribunal and as confirmed by the order of the High Court dated 10.2.2015 has not been complied with, even within the further time granted for making the pre-deposit, we dismiss the appeal for failure of pre-deposit, in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K.Singh)

Technical Member

scd/

1