9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1241 - AT - Service TaxMaintainability of appeal - requirement of pre-deposit has not been complied with before filing of the appeal - HELD THAT - Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide paragraph 4 and 5 in the impugned order has acknowledged the fact that the pre-deposit of 7.5% was made by the appellant under the CGST Act in form DRC-03. However, such payment was not considered by the first appellate authority for the purpose of entertaining the appeal and accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by him. On perusal of the case records, it is found that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed the merits of the case and simply rejected the appeal on the ground of noncompliance with the requirement of pre-deposit. Since merits of the case have to be decided by Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is remanded to him for deciding the appeal afresh on the basis of available records and submissions to be made by the appellant. Needless to say, that opportunity of hearing should be granted to the appellant before deciding the issue afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Appeal for early hearing, Compliance with pre-deposit requirement, Merits of the case
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai, comprising HON'BLE MR S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) and HON'BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL), heard an appeal where the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking early hearing. The Tribunal, after reviewing the application, allowed the out-of-turn hearing due to the nature of the case being suitable for expedited consideration. The appeal was taken up for immediate hearing and disposal with the consent of both parties. The case involved the dismissal of the appeal by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals Thane), GST & Central Excise, citing non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement before filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had indeed made a pre-deposit of 7.5% under the CGST Act in form DRC-03, which was acknowledged in the impugned order. However, the first appellate authority did not consider this payment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant, represented by a Chartered Accountant, highlighted that post the rejection of the appeal, they had fulfilled the pre-deposit requirement. The Authorized Representative for Revenue also confirmed the deposit made by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal opined that the appeal should be heard on its merits. However, upon reviewing the records, it was observed that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had not discussed the case's merits and solely rejected it based on the pre-deposit non-compliance. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a hearing to be granted to the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the case based on the available records and submissions from the appellant, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case before a fresh decision is made.
|
