Mrg Autos Ltd vs C.C.E., Ludhiana
- CitationService Tax Appeal No.96 of 2009
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may, following an earlier Tribunal order on the same question and for the same reasons, waive a pre-deposit requirement imposed as a condition of entertaining an appeal, and remand the matter to the appellate authority to be heard on merits without insisting on pre-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.279/CE/LDH/2008 dated 25.9.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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?
MRG Autos Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E., Ludhiana . Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellant [on merits]
Present Shri R. Khanna, A.R. for the respondent
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member
Final Order No.
52860/2015
Per R.K. Singh:
The appeal has been filed against order in-appeal dated 25.9.2008 which rejected the appellants appeal against order in-original dated 26.3.2008 on the ground that appellant did not make pre-deposit ordered and therefore, the appeal was not maintainable for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Vide the said order-in-original, service tax demand of Rs.1,04 lakhs along with interest and penalty was confirmed. Vide Stay Order dated 9.7.2008, the appellant was required to make pre-deposit of Rs.1 lakh (Rs.50,000/- towards service tax + Rs.50,000/- towards penalty). We find that date of communication of the order-in-appeal dated 25.9.2008 is mentioned as 9.9.2008 in the appeal papers which possibly could have been the date of communication of stay order dated 9.7.2008. We therefore take a view that the appeal has been filed not only against the order-in-appeal dated 25.9.2008 but also against stay order dated 9.7.2008.
2. When the case was called for hearing nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. A letter was found on record stating that the appeal may be decided on merits.
3. We have perused the records of the case. The essential point in dispute in this case is whether the handling charges on spare parts are liable to service tax in the case of autorised service station. The CESTAT vide its order No.ST/113/09 dated 2.4.2009 waived the pre-deposit holding that prima facie the handling charges on spare parts of auto vehicles are not includible in the assessable value.
4. Following the precedent and for reasons alike, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and remand the case to Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeal on merit without insisting of any pre-deposit.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Technical Member
scd/
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