2014 (7) TMI 668 - HC - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - Non compliance of pre deposit order - Extension of time granted by Court - Held that - Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act makes it amply clear that the whenever any appeal is filed, the person filing the appeal should deposit before the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied, unless the same is dispensed with by the Tribunal. In case such deposit as contemplated under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act is not deposited, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. - Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel on either side; perusing the records and keeping in mind the undue hardship that would be caused to the appellant and the interest of the Revenue, had shown sufficient indulgence to the appellant by granting time to deposit a part of the tax demanded. Thereafter, the Tribunal also granted extension of time to comply with the said order, of course with a default clause that the appeal will be dismissed in the event of non-compliance of the conditional order within the stipulated time. As the appellant failed to comply with the conditional order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has, in our considered opinion, rightly dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act. - No substantial question of law arises - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for non-compliance of conditional order of stay.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order demanding service tax, penalty, and interest. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit a specific amount within a set timeframe to stay recovery pending the appeal. Despite extensions granted, the appellant failed to comply with the orders, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal.

The High Court noted that Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act mandates depositing the duty demanded or penalty levied when filing an appeal unless dispensed with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, had shown leniency by allowing the appellant time to deposit part of the tax demanded and even granted an extension. However, the appellant's failure to comply led to the dismissal of the appeal in accordance with the law.

The Court found that the Tribunal's actions were justified, considering the appellant's non-compliance with the conditional order. As per Section 35-F, failure to make the required deposit can result in the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law was involved and upheld the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, a related miscellaneous petition was closed.