Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2014 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (9) TMI 485 - HC - Service Tax


Issues:
1. Challenge against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on a Stay Application.
2. Petitioner seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further proceedings for recovery of adjudicated liability.
3. Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Respondent's request for the Appellate Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal on merits.
5. Consideration of the petitioner being a statutory body under the Administrative control of the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Stay Application No. 133/2012 in Service Tax Appeal No. 251/2012. The petitioner sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further proceedings for recovery of the adjudicated liability, as per the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Guntur on 31-10-2011.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and stated that the petitioner must deposit the entire demanded amount within 8 weeks. The Appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner to remit the assessed liability within eight weeks and report compliance by a specified date, failing which the appeal would be dismissed for non-compliance.

3. The respondent's counsel, acknowledging the provisions of Section 35F of the Act, requested the Appellate Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal on its merits. The Court, after considering the submissions and the petitioner being a statutory body under the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, ordered the petitioner to deposit the entire amount demanded within eight weeks. Failure to comply would result in the appeal being dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. The Court clarified that if the petitioner deposited the required amount within the extended time, the Appellate Tribunal would proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized that all contentions on merits were kept open, and the Court had not examined the case's merits, ensuring that the decision was based solely on procedural aspects and compliance with statutory requirements.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates