2012 (5) TMI 426 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - delayed filing of an appeal before commissioner (appeals) - service tax with interest deposited during investigation - matter back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the application for condonation of delay without insisting any predeposit.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of predeposit of service tax and penalties under Section 78 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994; Appeal rejection based on delay; Application for condonation of delay not considered by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking waiver of predeposit of service tax amounting to Rs.31,43,384/- along with penalties of Rs.62,85,000/- and Rs.5,000/- under Section 78 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that they had already paid Rs.34,94,833/- during the investigation, emphasizing that the issue had not been adjudicated on merit by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). On the other hand, the ld. A.R. for the Department contended that the appeal was rejected by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay in filing. The applicant, in rejoinder, highlighted that an application for condonation of delay was submitted before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), but it was not considered.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, found that the appeal could be resolved at that stage. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the predeposit requirement of service tax and penalties. The matter was remanded back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the application for condonation of delay without insisting on any predeposit. It was emphasized that both parties should be given a fair opportunity to present their case. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand, and the stay petition was also resolved.

This judgment underscores the importance of considering applications for waiver of predeposit and condonation of delay in a fair and just manner. It highlights the need for both parties to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments before a decision is made. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) demonstrates a commitment to ensuring a thorough and unbiased adjudication of the case.