2013 (1) TMI 548 - HC - Service Tax

Pre-deposit - Dismissal of appeal by Tribunal for non-compliance of condition of Pre-deposit - Opportunity of being heard - Commissioner (Appeals) order to deposit 10% of the total amount i.e. Rs. 4.5 lacs - Appellants could not deposit the amount, the Tribunal in the order dated 27.12.11 enhanced the pre-deposit requirement to Rs.10 lacs within six weeks time - Advocate who was representing the appellants before the Tribunal had expired on 28.7.2011 - The Tribunal s order insisting on certain pre-deposit was passed without any representation from the appellant - Held that - The appellants deserve a chance to argue their appeals on merits. Tribunal, ought not to have enhanced the pre-deposit requirement to more than double the amount which the Commissioner has imposed. Place these appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merit. Remand back to Commissioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of pre-deposit condition by the Tribunal.
2. Dismissal of appeals by the Tribunal for non-compliance with pre-deposit order.
3. Validity of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.
4. Appellants' right to argue the appeals on merits.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were issued a show cause notice for recovery of central excise duty and penalties. The Adjudicating Authority's order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who initially required a 50% pre-deposit, later reduced to 10%. However, as the appellants failed to deposit the amount within the specified time, the appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Subsequently, the appellants approached the Tribunal, which directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs within six weeks. Due to non-compliance, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The main issue raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in imposing the pre-deposit condition and subsequently dismissing the appeals for non-compliance.

3. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's order of enhancing the pre-deposit requirement to Rs. 10 lakhs was passed without representation from the appellants, as their advocate had expired. The Court held that the appellants should have the opportunity to argue their appeals on merits and criticized the Tribunal for doubling the pre-deposit amount set by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, directing the appellants to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs by a specified date for the appeals to be considered on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals). Failure to comply would result in dismissal of all appeals. The Court disposed of the appeals accordingly, noting that civil applications were no longer relevant following the main appeals' resolution.