Pawan Engineering Works vs Unknown

Arising out of the order in original No. Commissioner/RPR/27/ST/2013 dated 31.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur.

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?

Pawan Engineering Works .. Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E.& S.Tax, Raipur . Revenue

Appearance:

Present Shri Yogendra Aldak, Advocate for the appellants

Present Shri B.B. Sharma, A.R. for Revenue

Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble. Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member

Final Order No. 50004/2015

Per Justice G. Raghuram:

By the order dated 27.5.2014 the stay application was disposed and for the reasons recorded therein pre-deposit of the assessed liability to tax and the interest liability thereon were directed to be deposited within six weeks, while granting waiver in respect of penalties confirmed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance, 1994. The order directed compliance to be reported by 31.7.2014.The order also endorsed a default clause stipulating that the appeal would stand rejected for failure of pre-deposit and noted the contention of the appellants counsel that since Rs.67,80,565/- was already deposited in March 2004 and observed and if that be so, the appellant would be entitled to take credit of the amount deposited, but shall deposit the balance of the assessed tax and interest, as ordered.

2. Against the order dated 27.5.2014, the appellant moved the Chhattishgarh High Court by way of Tax Case No.21/2014. This petition was rejected by the judgment of High Court dated 19.6.2014. The High Court granted six months time to deposit the amount as directed by the Tribunal.

3. The period of six months granted by the High Court expires on 18.12.2014. It is represented by appellants counsel that the appellant has failed to deposit the amount directed by the order of the Tribunal dated 27.5.2014 even within extended period granted by the High Court vide its order dated 19.6.2014.

4. In the circumstances, there is failure of pre-deposit. The appeal therefore stands rejected in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Technical Member

scd/

1