2015 (10) TMI 1930 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay on grounds of being bed-ridden Whether the delay was unintentional and demand of entire duty as pre-deposit is justified and Section 5 is applicable or not? Held That - Appellant could not show any reason for non-compliance of order demanding deposit of duty; thus intervening in the decision of Tribunal is not justified Found no merit in appeal Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay due to appellant's health condition.
2. Justification of directing appellant to make pre-deposit.
3. Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act.
4. Challenge against levy of duty and subsequent dismissal of appeal.
5. Non-compliance with Tribunal's order and dismissal of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appellant sought condonation of delay due to being bedridden and argued that the delay was unintentional and beyond their control. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the demanded duty, which the appellant failed to comply with, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The appellant provided buses to a transport corporation under a kilometer scheme and believed that since the main activities were exempt from service tax, the allied activities were also exempt. A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being time-barred. Subsequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the demanded duty, and upon non-compliance, the appeal was dismissed.

3. The appellant filed an appeal challenging the levy of duty, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Despite efforts to appeal the Commissioner's decision, the Tribunal's order for depositing the duty was not adhered to by the appellant, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

4. The High Court observed that the appellant failed to provide any reason for not complying with the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the case, and the appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.