2018 (9) TMI 754 - AT - Service Tax

Modification of the Tribunal s order dt. 29.5.2012 and 17.9.2012 - Held that - Even though six years had been passed from the date of passing the pre-deposit order, the applicant even though after giving undertaking to comply the same had not been complied with the direction of pre-deposit and kept on filing applications for modification of the order on the ground that they have deposited earlier the entire amount, when the said submission was considered by the Tribunal while passing pre-deposit order - From the letter dt. 4.4.2018 placed by the Revenue, it is crystal clear that the applicant had not paid the directed amount and all the payments which they claim to have been made was considered by the adjudicating authority. The Misc. applications seeking modification of the orders dt. 29.5.2012 and 17.9.2012 have no merits and are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Non-compliance with tribunal's order for pre-deposit, multiple modification applications filed, failure to pay directed amount, dismissal of modification applications.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application seeking modification of the Tribunal's order dated 29.5.2012 and 17.9.2012. The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, highlighted that the appellant's appeal had been dismissed previously due to non-compliance with the direction of Stay Order. Despite the passage of six years since the pre-deposit order, the appellant failed to adhere to the directive and continued filing modification applications, claiming earlier deposits covered the required amount. However, a letter presented by the Revenue confirmed the appellant had not paid the directed sum, contrary to their assertions. The Tribunal observed that all payments claimed to have been made were already considered during the pre-deposit order. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the miscellaneous applications and dismissed them, expecting the Revenue to promptly recover the outstanding amount.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with directives issued by the Tribunal and the consequences of failing to adhere to such orders. The appellant's repeated attempts to modify the order without fulfilling the pre-deposit requirement were deemed without merit, leading to the dismissal of the applications. The judgment underscores the necessity for parties to abide by tribunal orders promptly to avoid further delays and ensure efficient resolution of legal matters.