2009 (9) TMI 724 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, penalty under various sections, issuance of show cause notice, limitation for recovery, de novo proceedings.

Delay in filing appeal:
The COD application was filed to condone a 3-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal exercised discretion due to the marginal delay and allowed the COD application, directing the Registry to take the stay application and appeal on records.

Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties:
The stay petition was directed against the waiver of pre-deposit of specific amounts related to service tax, interest, and penalties under different sections of the Finance Act, 1994. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the applicant had a prima facie case regarding the limitation issue. The application for waiver of pre-deposit was allowed, and recovery of the amounts stayed pending the appeal's disposal.

Issuance of show cause notice and limitation for recovery:
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue authority had issued a show cause notice in 2004, which was followed by an adjudication order set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently, the adjudicating authority should have conducted de novo proceedings. However, another show cause notice for demand of duty was issued, which had already been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the recovery of the amounts involved was stayed until the appeal's final determination.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved issues related to the delay in filing the appeal, waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties, issuance of show cause notices, and the limitation for recovery. The Tribunal exercised discretion to condone a marginal delay in filing the appeal, allowed the waiver of pre-deposit, and stayed the recovery of amounts pending the appeal's disposal. The Tribunal also highlighted the need for de novo proceedings and the importance of adhering to the limitation period in such cases.