The Chief Officer Sringeri Town ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.MYS-EXCUS-000-DIVIVAPP-HAB-007-2014 dated 18/01/2014 passed by Commissioner of C
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellant has deposited the major part of the tax, interest and penalty due, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance dues; and where the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without deciding it on merits, the Tribunal may set aside that order and remand the matter for decision on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.MYS-EXCUS-000-DIVIVAPP-HAB-007-2014 dated 18/01/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , MYSORE ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL 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?
The Chief Officer Sringeri Town Panchayath Sringeri CHIKAMAGALUR - 577139 KAR Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Mysore S1-S2...VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570011 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Mahesh Durga, C.A. For the appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the respondent
Date of Hearing: 02/01/2015
Date of Decision: 02/01/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20010 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
The delay in filing the present appeal, which stands attributed to the Chief Officer being busy on election duty, is condoned and COD application is allowed.
2. It is further seen that Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that though the appellant had deposited about 90% of the service tax along with interest and a part of the penalty and they have not filed any application under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, for dispensing with the balance amount.
3. In view of the fact that the appellant has deposited the major part of the tax, interest and penalty, I deem it fit to dispense with the condition of predeposit of the balance dues. Further as Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merit, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner(Appeals) for decision on merits, without insisting on any further predeposit. COD application, stay petition as also appeal get disposed of in above manner.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja.
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