9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 493 - AT - Service TaxService Tax liability Interest and Penalty Waiver of Pre-deposit - the application for waiver of central excise duty and directed deposit as a condition for hearing the appeal u/s 35 F Held that - Assesse shall deposit the amount as directed by the order - The pre-deposit was not be made before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the assesse on account of pleaded financial stringency- This Tribunal accordingly directed pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) and remitted the matter for disposal of the appeal de novo - Super Tyres Ltd. vs. UOI 2005 (1) TMI 119 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI the Miscellaneous Application was devoid of merits and rejected Decided against assesse
Issues:
1. Review of the order passed in the stay application. 2. Failure to pre-deposit 20% of the tax amount. 3. Confirmation of the adjudication order by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Stay application directing the deposit of Rs.5 lakhs. 5. Contradiction with the judgments of High Court of Delhi and Appellate Tribunal. Issue 1: Review of the order passed in the stay application The petitioner sought relief for a review of the order dated 13.2.2013 passed in stay application No.5103 of 2012 by the Tribunal. The appeal was filed against the adjudication order dated 14.12.2009, assessing a service tax liability of Rs.18,68,165, along with interest and penalty. The Appellate Commissioner rejected the appeal due to the petitioner's failure to pre-deposit 20% of the tax amount as directed. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to pre-deposit within six weeks and report compliance, rescinding the earlier rejection of the appeal. Issue 2: Failure to pre-deposit 20% of the tax amount The petitioner, after the Tribunal's order, complied with the pre-deposit requirement. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the adjudication order dated 14.12.2009, including penalties under Sections 77 and 78, but set aside the penalty under Section 76 imposed by the adjudicating authority. Issue 3: Confirmation of the adjudication order by the Commissioner (Appeals) The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the adjudication order dated 14.12.2009, along with penalties under Sections 77 and 78, while setting aside the penalty under Section 76. The petitioner filed a stay application in 2012, which was disposed of on 13.2.2013, directing a deposit of Rs.5 lakhs as a condition for granting a waiver of pre-deposit of the adjudicated tax amount. Issue 4: Stay application directing the deposit of Rs.5 lakhs The petitioner contended that the order directing the deposit of Rs.5 lakhs was contrary to judgments of the High Court of Delhi and an interim order by the Tribunal in a different case. However, the Tribunal found no violation of the cited judgments and rejected the application, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount within two weeks. Issue 5: Contradiction with the judgments of High Court of Delhi and Appellate Tribunal The Tribunal differentiated the facts of the present case from the judgments cited by the petitioner. While the judgments referred to specific factual contexts, the Tribunal found no improper direction in the present case. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application, emphasizing compliance with the deposit directive within the stipulated timeline to avoid appeal rejection. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order directing the petitioner to deposit the specified amount within the given timeframe, emphasizing compliance to avoid the rejection of the appeal. The Tribunal found no merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding the cited judgments and rejected the application for review of the stay order.
|
