2014 (1) TMI 1387 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Imposition of penalty and interest - Held that - though there had been shortcomings on the part of both the parties but in the ultimate analysis, the cause of justice demands a consideration of the appeal on merits rather than to shunt the applicant out for some part of delay attributable to it and some part of technicalities that may otherwise operate - respondents had not been discreet in this matter on several aspects. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter now remains that the applicant has indeed deposited the amount of ₹ 25 lacs on 09.10.2013. Secondly, the appeal has not been dismissed on merits but has only been dismissed on account of default in not making the deposit of the amount of ₹ 25 lacs. It is apparent that even while dismissing the writ petition, this Court had enlarged the time for making deposit at the request made on behalf of the petitioner-applicant and granted four weeks further time. Obviously, the anxiety of the Court was to ensure consideration of the appeal on merits upon the petitioner-applicant making the deposit - interest of justice shall be served if the applicant is put to the condition of depositing the entire principal amount towards the tax liability under the order impugned - Conditional stay granted.

Issues involved:
1. Modification of order for consideration of appeal on merits by the appellate authority.
2. Dismissal of writ petition challenging interim order dated 11.02.2013.
3. Applicant's appeal dismissed on 07.06.2013 without notice.
4. Coercive recovery proceedings by respondents.
5. Restoration of appeal for consideration on merits.

Issue 1: Modification of order for consideration of appeal on merits by the appellate authority.
The petitioner sought modification of the order dated 22.07.2013 to consider its appeal on merits by the appellate authority. The background revealed that the Additional Commissioner confirmed a demand against the petitioner towards service tax, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- with conditions. The High Court found no merit in the writ petition but granted four weeks' time to deposit the amount. The Court emphasized the need for the appeal to be heard on merits upon compliance by the applicant.

Issue 2: Dismissal of writ petition challenging interim order dated 11.02.2013.
The petitioner challenged the interim order dated 11.02.2013 in a writ petition, questioning the directive to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs as service tax within two weeks. The Court observed that the demand against the petitioner was more than Rs. 1,23,00,000/-, and the directive to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs was not unreasonable. The Court dismissed the writ petition, highlighting that in tax matters, there can be no irreparable injury as the amount would be refunded if the appeal succeeded.

Issue 3: Applicant's appeal dismissed on 07.06.2013 without notice.
The applicant filed a miscellaneous application stating that its appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) had been dismissed on 07.06.2013 without its knowledge. The Court noted shortcomings on both sides but emphasized the need to consider the appeal on merits. The Court directed the applicant to deposit the entire principal amount towards the tax liability, with stipulations for compliance and revival of the appeal upon deposit.

Issue 4: Coercive recovery proceedings by respondents.
The applicant raised concerns about coercive recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents despite depositing Rs. 25 lakhs. The respondents argued that the dismissal of the appeal was justified due to non-compliance. The Court, after considering submissions, directed that coercive recovery proceedings should not proceed until final disposal of the appeal.

Issue 5: Restoration of appeal for consideration on merits.
In the final disposition, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit specific amounts against the tax liability, leading to the annulment of the earlier order and revival of the appeal. The Court stipulated compliance requirements and directed the appellate authority to proceed with hearing the appeal in accordance with the law. Coercive recovery proceedings were stayed until final disposal of the appeal, ensuring the appeal's consideration on merits.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, highlighting the legal proceedings and decisions made by the High Court in the case.

← Previous Next →