2013 (7) TMI 20 - HC - Service Tax

Stay/pre-deposit waiver duty demand of more than 64 lakhs - the amount of duty demand along with penalties and interest Held that - Tribunal had given sufficient opportunities to the petitioners to appear and argue their stay petitions on merits. - Such opportunities were not availed. - However, looking to the sizable amount of duty demand which was confirmed in the order in original and its overall impact along with penalties and interest, on certain suitable condition of imposing cost, we are inclined, as a special case, to enable the petitioners to appear before the Tribunal and argue their stay petitions on merits. - earlier orders to be set aside - Stay petitions before the Tribunal revived.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenging orders passed by CESTAT, dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance, restoration application dismissal, granting opportunity to present case, imposing cost as a condition, reviving stay petitions, setting preliminary date for appearance, consequences of failure to appear, deposit requirement with Legal Services Authority.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged three orders by CESTAT after their appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements. Despite dismissal, the petitioners sought restoration, which was also denied by the Tribunal citing missed opportunities for presenting their case. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged the default but emphasized the significant duty demand at stake. The respondents opposed further indulgence for the petitioners.

The Court acknowledged the missed opportunities but considered the substantial duty demand confirmed in the original order. As a special case, the Court decided to allow the petitioners to present their stay petitions on merits before the Tribunal, setting aside the previous orders. The petitioners were directed to appear on a specified date without separate notice, subject to the Tribunal's discretion for any rescheduling. Failure to appear would result in adverse orders without warning.

Additionally, the Court imposed a condition for the order to take effect, requiring the petitioners to deposit a specified sum with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority by a certain date and provide proof of deposit at the first hearing. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition accordingly, outlining the necessary steps for compliance with the set conditions.