M/S. Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...

(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.211/RAN/2013 DATED 23.12.2013 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RANCHI)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURES 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. SUSHILA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.

APPLICANT/APPELLANT VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RANCHI ...RESPONDENT

APPEARANCE:

SHRI R.K.GARODIA, CA FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT;

SHRI S.P.PAL, A.R. (APPRAISER) FOR THE REVENUE.

CORAM:

DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P.LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER

Date of Hearing & Decision:21.01.2015

ORDER NO.FO/A/75024/2015

Per Dr. D.M.Misra

This Application is filed seeking waiver of predeposit of Service Tax of Rs.14.63 lakh and penalty of Rs.9,86,506/- imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; and penalty of Rs.4,77,280/- under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2. At the outset, ld. CA for the Applicant submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merit, but dismissed their appeal for default in making the predeposit of Rs.15.00 lakh. He, however, offers to deposit Rs.2.00 lakh and prays that the matter may be remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue on merit, afresh.

3. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and has no objection, if the matter is remanded, after making the predeposit, as offered by the ld. Advocate for the Applicant.

4. We find that the Appeal itself, could be taken up for disposal, at this stage. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, we take up the Appeal for disposal.

5. We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issues on merit, but dismissed the appeal filed before him for non-compliance with the Order of Predeposit dated 26.03.2013. Considering the financial hardship expressed, the offer to deposit Rs.2.00 lakh seems to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Appellant are directed to deposit Rs.2.00 lakh (Rupees two lakh) within eight weeks from the date of communication of this Order, and report compliance directly, to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who, after recording compliance, will decide the matter on merit, afresh, without insisting for any further deposit. Needless to mention, a reasonable opportunity of hearing be afforded to the Appellant. All issues are kept open. The Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition disposed off.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)

SD/-23.01.2015 SD/-23.01.2015 (I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DUTTA/

3 ST/A/75515/2014

3