2016 (5) TMI 783 - AT - Service Tax

Defect memo - Asked to file separate appeal in respect of each Bill of Entry and pay Court fees for each assessment - Held that - as per Rule 6A of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 it has been clarified in the Explanation (1) that in a case where the impugned order-in-appeal has been passed in respect of more than one orders-in-original, the Memoranda of Appeal shall be equal to the Orders-in-original to which the case relates. In the instant case, each Bill of Entry has to be deemed to be an assessment order i.e. order-in-original in respect of which the impugned orders in appeal were passed and therefore, the appellant has to file appeal in respect of each Bill of Entry. As regards the payment of registration fee it is found that CESTAT in the case of Glyph International Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S. Tax 2013 (8) TMI 17 - CESTAT NEW DELHI after discussing the issue has clearly held that Section 86(6) of Finance Act, 1994 restricts charging of fees on appeals involving demand of Service Tax, interest or levy of penalty only. Provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 129A of the Customs Act are pari materia Section 86(6) of the Finance Act, 1994. As in the present case there is no involvement of any demand of Custom duty, interest or levy of penalty, therefore, no registration (Court) fee is payable by the appellant. - Defect memo and miscellaneous application disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether separate appeals are required to be filed for each Bill of Entry self-assessed by the appellant?
2. Is the payment of Court fee necessary for appeals involving self-assessed Bills of Entry?

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that since all 530 Bills of Entry were self-assessed based on a single SVB Order, only one appeal is needed for all entries. However, the Revenue contended that separate appeals must be filed for each assessment. The Tribunal referred to Rule 6A of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, explaining that each Bill of Entry should be treated as an assessment order, requiring separate appeals for each entry. Thus, the appellant needs to file individual appeals for all Bills of Entry.

2. Regarding the payment of Court fee, the appellant relied on a previous judgment by CESTAT in Glyph International Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S. Tax, arguing that no fee is required as there is no confirmation of demand, interest, or penalty. The Revenue, however, asserted that Court fee is applicable for each appeal. The Tribunal examined Section 86(6) of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 129A of the Customs Act, determining that fees are only chargeable for appeals involving demand, interest, or penalty. Since the present case did not entail such elements, the appellant was not obligated to pay any Court fee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that separate appeals must be filed for each self-assessed Bill of Entry, and no Court fee is payable by the appellant due to the absence of demand, interest, or penalty. The defect memo and miscellaneous application were disposed of accordingly.