9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 458 - HC - Service TaxWaiver of pre-deposit - tribunal dismissed the appeal when appellant failed to deposit the amount as directed by the Tribunal - assessee contended that once the Tribunal has granted a full waiver in similar cases, it would not be proper to take a different view in other cases. - Held that - In view of decision rendered by the Larger Bench 2011 (11) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT confirming earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the matter of Orange City Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 440 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , we are of the view that appellant is liable to comply the directions issued by the appellate Tribunal regarding deposit of Service Tax amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant further opportunity to appellant to deposit balance amount with appellate Tribunal and further direct the Tribunal to take decision in the matter on its own merit and in accordance with provisions of law.
Issues involved:
Challenge to the order of dismissal of appeal passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the order passed by the Tribunal on 14-5-2012 regarding the deposit of Service Tax amount. Analysis: 1. Issue of Pre-deposit of Service Tax Amount: The primary issue in this case revolves around the direction given by the Appellate Tribunal to the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the Service Tax amount. The appellant contested this direction citing a judgment in a similar case where a different approach was taken. The appellant relied on the judgment in the matter of M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India to argue that the Tribunal should apply consistent criteria for pre-deposit in similar circumstances. The respondent, however, argued that the appellant had accepted the order to deposit the amount and only challenged it after the appeal was dismissed. The respondent also pointed out that the judgment cited by the appellant had not been approved by two Division Benches. The Court analyzed these arguments along with the reference to a judgment in the matter of Orange City Alloys Private Limited and Others v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, and concluded that the appellant was liable to comply with the directions of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the deposit of the Service Tax amount. 2. Judicial Interpretation and Precedent: The Court delved into the judicial interpretations and precedents related to the issue of pre-deposit of Service Tax amount. It discussed the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. and the subsequent Larger Bench judgment that confirmed the view adopted by the Division Bench. The Court held that the decision of the Aurangabad Bench could not be treated as a precedent, and the Division Bench was not bound by it. This analysis provided the legal framework within which the Court made its decision regarding the pre-deposit of the Service Tax amount in the present case. 3. Court's Decision and Directions: Based on the analysis of the arguments presented by both parties and the legal precedents discussed, the Court decided to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal. The Court granted the appellant further opportunity to deposit the balance amount with the Appellate Tribunal within a specified period. It directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on its own merit and in accordance with the law after the deposit was made. The Court also clarified that there would be no order as to costs in the given circumstances. In conclusion, the judgment of the High Court of Bombay addressed the issue of pre-deposit of Service Tax amount in light of legal precedents and arguments presented by the parties, ultimately providing a detailed analysis and decision on the matter.
|
