2019 (1) TMI 74 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with pre-deposit - Held that - Admittedly, out of the demand of ₹ 13,86,31,711/-, a sum of ₹ 6,79,35,479/- had been deposited by the petitioner by way of reversal of credit in his CENVAT credit account, hence, taking care of that amount, actual demand from the petitioner would be ₹ 7,06,96,232/-. Let the petitioner deposit 7.5% on ₹ 7,06,96,232/- within a period of six weeks. On doing the needful, the appeal filed by the petitioner be heard by the Tribunal on merits - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to deposit required amount for entertainment of appeal.
2. Dispute over duty payment on motor vehicle parts and agricultural equipments.
3. Interpretation of pre-deposit condition for appeal consideration.

Issue 1: Failure to deposit required amount for entertainment of appeal
The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) due to the failure to deposit the necessary amount. The petitioner argued that as about 50% of the demand had already been paid, the condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% should have been considered as fulfilled, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits. However, the respondents contended that the petitioner did not comply with the pre-requisite condition of deposit.

Issue 2: Dispute over duty payment on motor vehicle parts and agricultural equipments
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts and agricultural equipments, faced a discrepancy in duty payment. While duty at 12% was paid on motor vehicle parts, duty at 6% was paid on agricultural equipments by reversing credit in the CENVAT credit account. A show cause notice was issued, claiming duty at 12% on agricultural equipments, leading to a demand of ?13,86,31,711 against the petitioner. An amount of ?6,79,35,479 already paid via credit reversal was not adjusted.

Issue 3: Interpretation of pre-deposit condition for appeal consideration
The High Court noted that out of the total demand of ?13,86,31,711, the petitioner had deposited ?6,79,35,479 through credit reversal. Consequently, the actual demand from the petitioner stood at ?7,06,96,232. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 7.5% of this reduced amount within six weeks. Upon compliance, the Tribunal was instructed to hear the appeal on merits, clarifying that no opinion on the case's merits was expressed in the judgment.

This judgment clarifies the significance of complying with pre-deposit conditions for appeal consideration, addresses the duty payment dispute between the petitioner and authorities, and provides a pathway for the appeal to be heard on its merits following the required deposit by the petitioner.