9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 982 - AT - Service TaxMaintainability of appeal - requirement to make pre-deposit - HELD THAT - The appellate authority could not have entertained the appeal without noting the compliance with the conditions as laid down as per this section. Since the appellant has failed to comply with the conditions as laid down under this section, Commissioner (Appeal) refused to entertain the appeal and dismissed the same without considering the same on merits. Undisputedly appellant has now made the pre-deposit of 10% for filing this appeal before CESTAT, which is more than 7.5 % of disputed tax amount, which was required to be deposited as pre-deposit for the first appellate authority to entertain the appeal. Taking note of the fact that no order has been passed in the matter on merits and the appeal was dismissed only for the requirement of pre-deposit, it is found that this matter is fit case for being remanded back to the Commissioner Appeals for consideration of the appeal before him on merits. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal in de-novo proceedings on merits within 90 days of the receipt of this order.
Issues involved: Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for filing an appeal.
Summary: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD allowed the appeal by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal on merits within 90 days. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for noncompliance with the conditions of Section 35F, which requires a deposit of a certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing an appeal. The appellant had failed to comply with the conditions under this section, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without consideration on merits. However, the appellant later made a pre-deposit of 10% for filing the appeal before CESTAT, exceeding the 7.5% required for the first appellate authority to entertain the appeal. Since the appeal was dismissed solely for the lack of pre-deposit, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a de-novo consideration on merits within the specified timeframe.
|
