2013 (9) TMI 928 - HC - Service Tax

Stay - Extention of time for making predeposit - Held that - The petitioner had an opportunity to deposit the 50% of the amount within six weeks of the order dated 25.6.2013. If there were any deposit, which were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal earlier, the same could be adjusted by the appellant and the remaining amount could be deposited by him. He has deposited the remaining amount of ₹ 7,05,180/- on 23rd August, 2013. The impugned order was passed on 15th July, 2013 - In the application for extension of time, the appellant did not offer any explanation at all for delay or for seeking further time in deposit - petitioner was given sufficient time to deposit the balance amount - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act arising from a CESTAT order dismissing a miscellaneous application for extension of time to deposit balance amount of demand.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act arising from a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order. The appellant sought an extension of time to deposit the balance amount of demand following a previous Tribunal order. The CESTAT had stayed further proceedings on the condition that 50% of the service tax be remitted within a specified period. The appellant, a petty contractor, had deposited a portion of the amount but sought additional time to pay the remaining balance. However, the application for extension was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds of non-compliance and lack of sufficient reasons for seeking further time.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had defaulted in complying with the previous order and had not provided proper particulars of the deposits made earlier. Despite the appellant's submissions regarding health issues and subsequent deposit of the remaining amount, the Tribunal took a strict view and rejected the application for extension. The appellant failed to offer any explanation for the delay or the need for additional time in the deposit.

The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the appellant had the opportunity to deposit the required amount within the specified period but failed to do so. The Court observed that the appellant did not provide any valid reasons for seeking an extension or for the delay in compliance. The appellant eventually deposited the remaining amount after the Tribunal's decision. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders, stating that the appellant was given sufficient time to fulfill the payment obligation.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the central excise appeal, emphasizing that there were no valid reasons to overturn the Tribunal's decision. The Court found no legal issues warranting consideration in the appeal, thereby upholding the Tribunal's order and decision.