2015 (12) TMI 82 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Appeal dismissed for non compliance with pre deposit order - Held that - Tribunal in the appellant s own case reported as M/s. National Institute of Banking Studies & Corporate Management of 2013 (1) TMI 163 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has granted un-conditional stay to the appellant. By following the same, we are of the view that the stay order passed by the Commissioner directing applicant/appellant to deposit 50% of the confirmed duty and the subsequent order of dismissal of non-compliance are required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remand to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merit without insisting on any pre-deposit. Accordingly, We set aside both the impugned orders and allow both the appeals and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against AD-Interim Order directing deposit of duty amount.
2. Appeal against subsequent dismissal of appeal for non-compliance.
3. Granting un-conditional stay in a previous case.
4. Setting aside the orders and remanding the matter for decision on merit.
5. Miscellaneous application for placing additional ground.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an AD-Interim Order by the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the confirmed duty amount of Rs. 35,38,507. The Tribunal noted that stay orders like this are appealable before them, especially in light of a recent decision by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Since the appellant failed to deposit the required amount, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. However, upon learning that the dismissal was also appealed against, the Tribunal decided to consider both appeals together.

2. Referring to a previous case involving the same appellant, where an un-conditional stay was granted, the Tribunal concluded that the order directing the deposit and subsequent dismissal for non-compliance should be set aside. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merit without insisting on any pre-deposit. Consequently, both the impugned orders were set aside, and both appeals were allowed, with the matter being remanded for a decision on merits without the need for a pre-deposit.

3. A miscellaneous application was filed for placing additional grounds related to the merits of the case. The Tribunal granted the appellant liberty to present these grounds before the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration. The miscellaneous application was also disposed of in the course of the judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the orders directing the deposit of duty amount and subsequent dismissal, remanding the matter for a decision on merit without pre-deposit. The appellant was also allowed to present additional grounds through a miscellaneous application.