2013 (6) TMI 25 - AT - Service Tax

Extension of time for pre-deposit - matter pending before high court - held that - In answer to a query from the bench, the counsel is not sure whether their appeal against our Stay Order has been admitted by the Hon ble High Court or not. No copy of any record of proceedings of the Hon ble High Court has been produced either. The extended period of 2 weeks expired a week ago. In the meanwhile, the appellant could have taken steps for obtaining stay of operation of our direction for pre-deposit. The present prayer of the appellant s counsel, in this scenario, does not appear to be acceptable. The appellant wants to evade the mandate of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as applicable to their service tax appeal. - the appeal dismissed for non compliance - decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, delivered by Mr. P.G. Chacko, dealt with the issue of non-compliance with a pre-deposit order. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs within a specific timeframe, as per Stay Order No. 1500/2012 dated 30.08.2012. However, the Assistant Registrar reported that the appellant failed to comply with this directive. A miscellaneous application (Miscellaneous Application No. 613/2012) was filed by the appellant, requesting a modification of the Stay Order due to pending appeals in the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The appellant sought an extension of time for pre-deposit, which was opposed by the learned Superintendent (AR).

Upon review, the bench noted that a previous extension had already been granted, and the extended period had lapsed without compliance. The appellant's counsel was uncertain about the status of their appeal in the High Court and had not provided any supporting documentation. Despite the lapse of the extended period, no deposit had been made by the appellant, raising concerns about potential evasion of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act applicable to their service tax appeal.

In the absence of evidence of pre-deposit, the bench dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The miscellaneous application seeking modification of the Stay Order was also dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to legal directives and fulfilling financial obligations as mandated by the law to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and uphold the principles of justice.