2016 (9) TMI 97 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal and stay order - notice of personal hearing approach of appellant in pursuing its appeal/stay application Held that - on the casual approach of the applicant in pursuing its statutory right of appeal, some cost should be imposed on the applicant. Therefore, the applicant to deposit cost of ₹ 5,000/- into the Prime Minister s Relief Fund, within a period of one week and to report compliance of such deposit restoration of stay and appeal granted miscellaneous application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of Final Order due to non-compliance of stay order.
2. Non-service of notice of hearing on the appellant.
3. Imposition of cost on the appellant for casual approach in pursuing appeal.

Issue 1: Recall of Final Order due to non-compliance of stay order

The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking the recall of the Final Order dated 24/10/13 passed in appeal No. ST/56967/2013 - CU (DB) as the appeal was rejected for non-compliance of the stay order dated 11/9/13. The appellant claimed that notice of hearing was not served on them during the stay application and the appeal proceedings. The Revenue, however, contended that the notice of personal hearing was served on the appellant through the Jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities. The Tribunal noted the casual approach of the appellant in pursuing the appeal/stay application and observed that the stay application was disposed of without discussing the merits of the case, directing the appellant to deposit the entire adjudicated dues due to non-prosecution. The Tribunal decided to grant the appellant another opportunity to explain its case for the purpose of stay, considering the lack of discussion on the case's merits in the previous decision.

Issue 2: Non-service of notice of hearing on the appellant

The Tribunal found that the Department had indeed served the notice on the appellant on 15/10/13, contradicting the appellant's claim of non-receipt of the notice. This discrepancy highlighted the casual approach of the appellant in pursuing its appeal and stay application before the Tribunal. Despite the notice being served, the appellant failed to engage effectively in the proceedings, leading to the imposition of certain consequences. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper communication and adherence to procedural requirements in legal matters to ensure fair and transparent proceedings.

Issue 3: Imposition of cost on the appellant for casual approach in pursuing appeal

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the appellant's casual approach in exercising its statutory right of appeal, the Tribunal decided to impose a cost of ?5,000/- on the appellant. The cost was directed to be deposited into the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within a week, with a deadline for compliance set for 24th August, 2016. Upon submission of the compliance report, the appeal and stay application were to be restored to their original numbers for further proceedings. This cost imposition served as a penalty for the appellant's lackadaisical approach towards the legal process, emphasizing the importance of diligence and seriousness in pursuing legal remedies.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of recall of the Final Order, non-service of notice, and imposition of cost on the appellant in a comprehensive manner, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance, effective communication, and diligent pursuit of legal rights in legal proceedings.