2014 (12) TMI 956 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non compliance of pre deposit order - whether an interlocutory order passed would revive after restoration of the appeal earlier dismissed for default or otherwise - Held that - The relevant principle is reiterated in the decision of the Delhi High Court in Radhey Bai v. Savithri Sharma - 1975 (2) TMI 112 - DELHI HIGH COURT . There is unvarying judicial authority for this principle, spelt out in the judgment of the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, in the circumstances and in the right of the settled legal position we declare that the interim order dated 23-2-2012 directing waiver of pre-deposit of the balance adjudicated liability on condition of the deposit of ₹ 40 lakhs (the amount having already been deposited as noticed by the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court) has revived and shall be operative during pendency of the appeal. In this view of the matter this application is infructous and dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of further proceedings sought after an adjudication order confirmed Service Tax demand.
2. Dismissal of appeal for default of pre-deposit and subsequent appeal to the High Court.
3. Revival of interlocutory order after restoration of appeal dismissed for default.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a stay application seeking to halt further proceedings following an adjudication order confirming a substantial Service Tax demand, along with interest and penalties. The appellant was directed to deposit a specific amount within a set timeframe to waive the pre-deposit of the remaining liability. However, due to non-compliance, the appeal was dismissed for default of pre-deposit. Subsequently, an appeal was made to the High Court, which set aside the dismissal order, noting partial compliance by the appellant within the specified time frame and the rest after the dismissal order.

2. The Revenue initiated steps to recover the entire adjudicated liability post the dismissal of the appeal, assuming the interim stay order had lapsed. The petitioner then sought stay, questioning whether the interlocutory order would revive after the appeal's restoration. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal clarified that the settled legal position dictates the revival of the interim order upon appeal restoration. The Tribunal declared that the interim order directing waiver of pre-deposit based on the deposit made by the appellant, as recognized by the High Court, stands revived and operational during the appeal's pendency. Consequently, the application for stay was deemed unnecessary and dismissed, along with a similar miscellaneous application.

3. The issue of whether an interlocutory order revives after the restoration of an appeal previously dismissed for default was addressed by referring to established legal principles and a specific Delhi High Court decision. The Tribunal reaffirmed the consistent judicial authority supporting the revival of such orders upon appeal restoration. Based on this legal position, the Tribunal concluded that the interim order directing waiver of pre-deposit had indeed revived and would remain effective during the appeal's pendency, rendering the current application for stay redundant and leading to its dismissal.