9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 33 - HC - Service TaxStay - Assessee ST registration certificate was issued in the name of son as proprietor appellant claims that firm is the proprietorship concern of daughter in law registered address / premises belongs to daughter in law bank accounting operated by daughter in law SCN was issued in the name of firm appellant and daughter in law submitted that they have not concern with the firm - Held that - Keeping in view the averments raised by the appellant and the fact that he is an aged person of about 80 years and has no source of income of his own and the fact that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as a pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, we are of the view that the pre-deposit order of an additional amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is not justified. In the given circumstances, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of asking for the pre-deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs.
Issues: Appeal against pre-deposit order of Rs.20.00 lakhs by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged the order of CESTAT directing a pre-deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs in addition to the already deposited Rs.5.00 lakhs. The appellant claimed no association with the firm in question, M/s. Star Shine Cable Network, registered in the name of his son and operated by his daughter-in-law. Despite various submissions and evidence provided, including affidavits and letters disassociating himself from the firm, the Additional Commissioner, Service Tax, held him liable for Rs.46.00 lakhs, affirmed by the Commissioner, Excise (Appeals), and CESTAT. The appellant, aged about 80 years and with health issues, appealed against the pre-deposit amount. 2. The appellant's counsel referred to a previous Division Bench order in a similar case where a pre-deposit order was modified based on comparable submissions. The court noted the need for the appellate authority to decide the appellant's liability based on the merits of the case, acknowledging the prima facie view taken by the appellate authority in the impugned order. Considering the appellant's age, health, lack of personal income, and the already deposited sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the court found the additional pre-deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs unjustified and set it aside. 3. The court clarified that its decision on the pre-deposit order does not reflect its views on the case's merits, leaving the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its own merits. The appeal and application were thus disposed of, with the pre-deposit order of Rs.20.00 lakhs being set aside.
|
