M/S.Designco vs Cce,Hapur

(Arising out of OIA No.HPU/EXCUS/000/APPEALS-I/102/2014-15 dt.29.1.15 passed by CCE(Appeals), Meerut)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 22.06.2015

For approval & Signature:

Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities? Yes

M/s.Designco Appellant

Vs.

CCE,Hapur Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri Jitin Singhal, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K.Grover, AR

Coram: Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.51996/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut rejecting the appeal on ground of default in making payment of mandatory pre-deposit under section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellant is having Service Tax registration and is rendering taxable services under the category of Transport of goods by Road. Pursuant to an audit, the appellant was required to produce copy of contract entered between appellant and landlord regarding payment of service tax paid on renting immovable property. The show cause notice was finalized by the Order-in-Original dated 4.12.2014 whereby penalty of Rs.1,97,800/- was imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act,1994 for contravening the provisions of Rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected for non payment of mandatory pre-deposit.

3. Heard both sides. The impugned order is not an order passed on merits. The appeal has been rejected for default in payment of mandatory pre-deposit. The appellant has deposited Rs.20,000/- on 26.3.2015 towards mandatory pre-deposit. Thus, compliance under section 35F of the Act has been made by the appellant.

4. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the appellant should be given a chance to defend their case on merits. In such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated & pronounced in open court)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

mk

3