Vindhya Security Service vs C.C.E. & S. Tax, Bhopal
- CitationService Tax Appeal No.56844 of 2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with a conditional pre-deposit order: where a stay application has been disposed of on the finding that no prima facie case was made out, and the tribunal has directed pre-deposit of the balance adjudged duty with interest within a fixed period, failure to comply entitles the tribunal to dismiss the appeal, the pendency of a challenge to that order before the High Court not being shown to have stayed or modified it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Arising out of the order-in-appeal No.02/BPL/2013 dated 3.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal.
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 I n 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?
Vindhya Security Service .. Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. & S. Tax, Bhopal Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellants
Present Ms. Suchitra Sharma, A.R. for the respondent
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member
Final Order No.50181/2015
Per Justice G. Raghuram:
On 19.11.2014 the stay application was disposed of and since it was found that the appellant has not made out a prima facie case, pre-deposit of the balance adjudicated service tax liability amounting to Rs.19,07,408/- along with proportionate interest thereon was directed to be made within six weeks and to report compliance today. Registry noted on 19.1.2015 that pre-deposit has not been complied with.
2. Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Counsel states that the appellant has approached the High Court against the pre-deposit ordered. However, there is no order of the High Court indicting the order dated 19.11.2014. We are therefore constrained to record failure of pre-deposit and we consequently dismiss the appeal, for the same.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Technical Member
scd/
1
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