M/S. Raju & Co vs C.C.E.&S.T., Jaipur-I
- CitationAppeal No.ST/52961/2014-CU[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a stay order fixes a time for pre-deposit and the appellant has in fact made that deposit within the stipulated time, the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance cannot stand merely because the intimation of the deposit did not reach the authority within that time; the actual timely payment, proved by challan, is the operative compliance, and the appeal must be restored and remanded for hearing 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 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? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Application No.ST/STAY/53318/2014-CU[DB]
Appeal No.ST/52961/2014-CU[DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.35(VC)ST/JPR-I/2014, dated 28.03.2014 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Jaipur-I]
M/s. Raju & Co. Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E.&S.T., Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance
Mr. Bipin Garg, Advocate - for the appellant
Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR - for the respondent
CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No.52822/2015, dated 31.08.2015
Per Mr. R.K. Singh :
Stay application along with appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 25/28.03.2014, which dismissed the appeal of the appellant against Order-in-Original dated 27.07.2012, in terms of which service tax demand of Rs.1,60,364/- under Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service (ECIS) was confirmed along with interest and penalties. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the pre-deposit of Rs.80,000/- which was to be made within three weeks from the date of the Stay Order dated 18.02.2014 was not made within the stipulated time.
2. The appellant has contended that it has actually deposited Rs.80,000/- on 28.02.2014, which was within the time prescribed stipulated in Commissioner (Appeals) Stay Order dated 18.02.2014, though the intimation of the deposit could not reach Commissioner (Appeals) within the stipulated time. The appellant also submitted copy of the challan for Rs.80,000/- as evidence that the said deposit was made on 28.02.2014.
3. We have considered the contentions of the appellant. We find that the pre-deposit ordered by Commissioner (Appeals) was actually made by the appellant within the time stipulated by Commissioner (Appeals). In these circumstances, we allow the stay petition and also allow the appeal by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeal on merits.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
SSK
-2-
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