M/S. S.P.S. Arts & Entertainment Ltd vs Commr. Of Service Tax, Kolkata
- Case No.Service Tax Appeal No.ST/75926/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellant fails to comply with a direction to deposit a sum as a condition of hearing its appeal, and the direction was dictated in the presence of its advocate and a copy was despatched by the Registry without being returned undelivered, the appeal is liable to dismissal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to service tax matters.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 82/Comm/ST/KOL/2013-14 dated-21/03/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata)
For approval and signature of:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI K.K. THAKUR, 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. S.P.S. Arts & Entertainment Ltd..
APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata RESPONDENT(S) APPEARANCE
NONE FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S. N. Mitra, A.C. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI H.K. THAKUR, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 20/08/2015
ORDER NO._ FO/A/75451/2015 Per DR.D.M. MISRA None present for the applicant.
2) Heard the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue.
3) Vide Order No. SO/75483/2015 dated-25/05/2015, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.50.00 Lakhs and report compliance on 3rd August, 2015. The order was dictated in presence of the Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant and also a copy was despatched by the Registry on 4/06/2015.The order was not returned as undelivered.
4. In these circumstances, Ld. A.R. for the Revenue pleads that since the applicant has failed to comply with the direction of pre-deposit, their appeal is liable for dismissal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of CEA, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax matters.
5. We find force in the contention of the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue. In the result, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F as applicable to Service Tax matters. Appeal dismissed. (Dictated & pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- 21/08/15 Sd/- 21/08/15 (H.K. THAKUR) (DR. D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
k.b/-
Service Tax Appeal No.ST/75926/2014
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