Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 362 - AT - Service TaxRestoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non compliance with Section 35F - construction of service and man power supply service - Held that - Appellant has not made out prima facie case for waiver of entire predeposit of entire demand. However, considering that the appellant paid ₹ 1.5 lakhs by T.R.6 challan dt. 4.12.2013, we direct the appellant to make a predeposit of ₹ 5,00,000 in two instalments. The deposit of ₹ 1,50,000/- already made by them shall be adjusted against above predeposit amount - Matter remanded back - Partial stay granted.
Issues:
Non-compliance of predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act. Analysis: The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with the predeposit order of 50% of the total demand. The appellant argued that the issue involved both construction of service and man power supply service. They had already deposited a certain amount during the proceedings. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the major part of the demand pertained to man power supply services. The LAA upheld the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance of predeposit. Upon considering the merits of the case, the judges found that the appellant did not establish a prima facie case for a complete waiver of the predeposit. However, acknowledging the payment of &8377; 1.5 lakhs made by the appellant, the tribunal directed them to make a predeposit of &8377; 5,00,000/- in two instalments. The amount already deposited was to be adjusted against this sum. The appellant was instructed to make the first instalment payment by a specified date and the second instalment by a later date. Once the payments were made, they were required to produce the payment challans before the Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings on the appeal. The case was remanded to the LAA with these instructions, and the Stay application was disposed of accordingly.
|