2013 (2) TMI 331 - AT - Service Tax

Seeking modification of the stay order - Held that - Plea for modification of original stay order which has already merged with Hon ble High Court s order obviously it is incompetent to modify the stay order. The party has not complied with the time-bound direction of the Hon ble High Court either. There is no clear statement of any payments made by the appellant for the period April 2004 to June 2005, nor is there any claim of further payments within the prescribed time towards pre-deposit of Rs. 14 lakhs ordered by this Bench. Miscellaneous application rejected - appeal gets dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as applicable to the Service Tax

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with pre-deposit order, request for extension of time, modification of stay order, compliance with High Court direction, plea for modification of stay order, dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the appellant was directed to pre-deposit Rs. 14,00,000 within a specified time frame, but failed to comply with the order. Despite a subsequent extension granted upon request, the appellant still did not report compliance as required. A miscellaneous application seeking modification of the stay order was filed, citing financial hardships and referencing a High Court order that allowed credit for earlier payments towards the pre-deposit but did not interfere with the Tribunal's direction. The appellant argued that only Rs. 25,865 remained to be paid as part of the pre-deposit. The Tribunal noted that it was incompetent to modify the stay order after it had merged with the High Court's order, and the appellant had not complied with the High Court's time-bound direction or provided clear evidence of payments made. As a result, the miscellaneous application was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act applicable to the Service Tax appeal.

The judgment highlights the importance of complying with pre-deposit orders issued by the Tribunal and the subsequent directions of the High Court. It underscores the need for clear and timely documentation of payments made to meet pre-deposit requirements. The Tribunal's decision to reject the modification plea and dismiss the appeal emphasizes the significance of adherence to legal procedures and statutory provisions, such as Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, in matters of tax appeals.