M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Limited vs Cst, Delhi
- CitationService Tax Appeal No. 51343 of 2014 with
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellant has in fact complied with a condition of pre-deposit imposed as a condition for waiver of pre-deposit, but has failed to report that compliance to the appellate authority, the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance cannot stand; the appellant's failure to report compliance is a negligent omission which does not defeat the appeal where actual compliance is established, and the matter is to be remanded to the appellate authority for determination on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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?
Service Tax Appeal No. 51343 of 2014 with
Service Tax Stay No. 51583 of 2014
(Arising out of order in appeal No. 232/S. Tax DLH/2013 dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Delhi-I).
M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co. Limited Appellant
Vs.
CST, Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant
Sh. B. B. Sharma, DR for the Respondent
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 51925/ 2015
Per: Justice G. Raghuram:
The primary adjudication order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi confirmed service tax demand of Rs.27,96,939/- apart from interest and penalties. Appellant preferred an appeal. Vide interim order No. 09/2013 dated 08.08.2013, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) directed pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- as a condition for waiver of pre-deposit. By the impugned order dated 18.11.2013, the ld. appellate Commissioner dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the interim order dated 08.08.2013 since no report of compliance was submitted by the appellant.
2. It is pleaded and stated before us that the appellant had remitted Rs.5 lakhs on 31.08.201`3 by way of challan drawn in favour of Revenue and thus there was compliance with the pre-deposit ordered by the ld. Commissioner. Photocopy of an e-receipt issued by the State Bank of India is enclosed with the appeal.
3. In the above circumstances there is seen to be compliance with the order of pre-deposit dated 08.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant was however negligent in failing to report compliance. Since there however is compliance with the pre-deposit order, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for determination of the appeal, on merits. This appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(Rakesh Kumar)
Member (Technical)
Pant
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