2013 (3) TMI 468 - AT - Service Tax

Compliance of stay order - appellant submits that a writ petition has been filed against the above stay order and an application for stay of operation of the direction for pre-deposit is pending with the Hon ble High Court. He prays for keeping the matter in abeyance till the said stay application is disposed of by the Hon ble High Court. - held that - The learned advocate is unable to tell us as to when the stay application will be taken up by the Hon ble High Court. In any case, it is not in dispute that our stay order is still in force but yet to be complied with. - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Non-compliance with pre-deposit order, pending writ petition and stay application, dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, delivered by P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member, addressed the non-compliance with a pre-deposit order issued to the appellant in a service tax matter. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit the entire service tax amount and report compliance by a specified date. Despite the appellant filing a writ petition against the stay order and an application for stay of the pre-deposit direction, the compliance was not met within the stipulated time frame. The tribunal noted that there had been no Bench sitting for some time, leading to the matter being revisited for compliance. The appellant's advocate requested to keep the matter in abeyance until the stay application was decided by the High Court. However, the tribunal was not convinced by this plea, highlighting that the writ petition and stay application were filed after the pre-deposit period had lapsed.

In light of the circumstances presented, the tribunal found the appellant's argument for delaying the compliance unconvincing. The appellant had failed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement within the specified time and had not requested an extension for the same. The tribunal emphasized that its stay order was still in effect but had not been adhered to by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the tribunal for the appellant's non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The dismissal was based on the failure to meet the statutory provision's requirements, despite the appellant's attempt to challenge the initial order through legal avenues. The tribunal's decision underscored the importance of timely compliance with legal directives in matters concerning taxation and statutory provisions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal in this case.