M/S. Manna Construction vs Commr. Of Central Excise & Service Tax
- CitationService Tax Appeal No.ST-70644/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a pre-deposit condition imposed under the statute as a precondition to hearing an appeal would cause undue hardship to the appellant, the Tribunal may, in the interest of justice, reduce the required pre-deposit and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits after compliance with the reduced amount, without insisting on any further deposit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.11/ST/HAL/2013 dated 26/03/2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Kolkata)
For approval and signature of:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : 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 ?
M/s. Manna Construction
APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax- Haldia RESPONDENT(S)
APPEARANCE
Sri P.K. Guha, Consultant FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S.P. Pal, Appraiser (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 14/05/2015
ORDER NO. FO/A/75252/15 Per DR.D.M. MISRA
This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.12.85 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalties under other Provisions of Finance Act, 1994.
2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri P.K. Guha for the applicant submitted that the Ld. Commissioner has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed their appeal for failure to deposit Rs.10.00 Lakhs as a pre-condition under Section 35F of CEA, 1944. He submits that the applicants financial condition is not sound hence they could not deposit the said amount. However, he makes an offer to deposit Rs.2.00 Lakhs and prays that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh.
3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit. He has no objection in remanding the case.
4. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, the appeal is taken up for disposal.
5. We find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has directed the appellant to deposit Rs.10.00 Lakhs against the total demand of Rs.12,85,958/- as a condition to hear their Appeal.Considering the financial hardship, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to direct the appellant to deposit Rs.2.00 Lakhs. Consequently, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.2.00 Lakhs (Rupees Two lakh) within a period of eight weeks and report compliance directly to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). After recording compliance, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without insisting any further deposit would consider the appeal afresh on merit. Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be given to the appellant. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. S.P. disposed off.
( Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(DR.I.P.LAL) (DR. D.M. MISRA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
k.b/-
Service Tax Appeal No.ST-70644/2013
3
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