2013 (10) TMI 861 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Exemption from payment of service tax to municipalities - Held that - Assistant Commissioner had required the bank to pay Rs.35,06,174/- towards the dues arising as a result of impugned order in this case and this amount has been paid by the bank to the Government by preparing a Demand Draft and the Demand Draft numbers are also available in letter written by bank to the appellant. We consider that the evidence produced by the appellant to show the payment is sufficient - stay allowed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, recovery of amount, attachment of bank accounts, payment evidence, stay application

In the present case, the main issue before the Appellate Tribunal was the delay of 123 days in filing the appeal by the appellant. The appellant sought condonation of the delay, attributing it to the Government of Andhra Pradesh taking up the issue with the Central Government regarding exemption from payment of service tax to municipalities. The Tribunal, considering the explanation provided by the appellant's counsel as reasonable, decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

Another significant issue raised by the appellant was the Department's attachment of the appellant's bank accounts to recover the outstanding amount. The appellant's counsel produced a letter from the bank and a letter from the Assistant Commissioner, Guntur Division, instructing the bank to pay the due amount to the Government. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Commissioner had required the bank to pay Rs.35,06,174/- towards the dues arising from the impugned order. It was confirmed that the bank had paid this amount to the Government through a Demand Draft, with the relevant details provided in the bank's letter to the appellant. Considering the evidence presented, the Tribunal found it sufficient and observed that since almost the entire demanded amount and penalty had been recovered, no further deposit was necessary from the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Condonation of Delay application and the Stay application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of delay in filing the appeal, recovery of the outstanding amount through bank account attachment, and the sufficiency of evidence provided by the appellant. The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay and allow the applications based on the evidence presented signifies a comprehensive resolution of the issues raised by the appellant in this case.