2013 (9) TMI 1161 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the extension of operation of an order dated 30-12-2012 passed in a stay application, waiver of pre-deposit of adjudicated liability, and the interpretation of provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Extension of operation of stay application order:
The appeal was filed against an adjudication order passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication), Chandigarh-II, confirming a service tax demand and ordering recovery of interest under Section 75 and specified penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act. A part of the demand was dropped. The Tribunal had directed a pre-deposit of &8377; 10 lakhs within a stipulated time and granted waiver of pre-deposit of the balance adjudicated liability "during the pendency of the appeal or for a period of six months whichever is earlier." The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking extension of the order dated 30-12-2012, as the period of six months had lapsed.

Interpretation of provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Finance Act, 1994, related to pre-deposits in appeals. It was clarified that an order granting waiver of pre-deposit, even on condition of deposit of a part of the adjudicated liability, operates during the pendency of the appeal. Such waiver does not act as a stay of the adjudication order or the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and does not hinder the realization of the adjudicated liability by the Revenue. Only an order of stay of realization of the adjudicated liability has a sunset period as per Section 35C(2A) of the 1944 Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the order of waiver of pre-deposit operates indefinitely during the pendency of the appeal, and there was no need to grant an extension of the said order. The order of waiver of pre-deposit, as recorded in the order dated 30-10-2012, was construed as an order without any limit as to the time of its operation. The miscellaneous application seeking extension was rejected with this clarification.