M/S. Shalendra Industrial Security ... vs Commr. Of Central Excise &

(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.34/ST/HAL/2013 dated-10/09/2013 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Haldia)

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. Shalendra Industrial Security Services

APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Haldia

RESPONDENT(S)

APPEARANCE

Sri A.C. Tikadar, Consultant

FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri N.G. Mondal, A.C. (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 : 01/06/2015

ORDER NO. FO/A/75273/2015 Per DR. D.M. MISRA

This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.31,00,068/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty under other provisions of Finance Act, 1994.

2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri A.C. Tikadar for the applicant submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed their appeal under Section 35F of CEA, 1944, as applicable to Service Tax matters for failure to deposit Rs.60.00 Lakhs as directed. He submits that they have a strong case on merit and the financial condition of the Appellant is not sound. However, he offers to deposit Rs.3.10 Lakhs and prays that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue on merit.

3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue fairly accepted that the issue has not been decided on merit and he has no objection in remanding the case.

4. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Accordingly, we take up the appeal for disposal with the consent of both sides.

5. We find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed the Appela for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of CEA,1944. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the case on merit. The offer to deposit Rs.3,10,000/- at this stage, seems to be reasonable. Consequently, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.3,10,000.00 (Rupees Three Lakhs Ten Thousand only) within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and report compliance directly to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after recording compliance would proceed with the matter without insisting any further pre-deposit. Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be given to the appellant. All issues are kept open. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. S.P. disposed off.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/- 05/06/15 Sd/- 02/06/15 (DR.I.P.LAL) (DR. D.M. MISRA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

k.b/-

Service Tax Appeal No. 71349/2013

3