9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 722 - AT - Service TaxRestoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non compliance of pre deposit - Held that - In an ordinary course, the deposit of the dues as directed by the Tribunal after a gap of two years would call for arguments by both the sides as regards the restoration. But in the present case, we note that the appellant had filed a modification application and during the said period of two years, the application was pending disposal. In these circumstances, the appellant s non-action of deposit of directed amount, expecting a favourable reasoned order on the modification application, seems to be a reasonable plea for non-deposit. - Appeal restored.
Issues: Delayed deposit of directed amount, application for modification of stay order, justification for recalling dismissal order
In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE issued an order directing the appellant to deposit the entire service tax, interest amount, and 25% of the penalty within four weeks. However, the compliance was not produced before the Bench on the specified date, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant later filed an application for modification of the stay order on the same day but it was not listed or disposed of. The appellant argued that the delay in depositing the directed amount was due to the pending modification application. The Revenue contended that the delay of two years in depositing the amount did not justify recalling the dismissal order. The Tribunal noted that during the two-year period, the modification application was pending disposal, and the appellant's non-action in depositing the directed amount was based on the expectation of a favorable order on the modification application. Considering this, the Tribunal found the appellant's plea for non-deposit to be reasonable. Therefore, the Tribunal recalled the Final Order of dismissal, restored the appeal to its original number, and allowed the application for Recall of Order and disposed of the modification application as infructuous.
|
