2013 (10) TMI 187 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of Order Held that - The first appellate authority had categorically recorded that the order-in-original was the repetition of an adjudication in respect of the very same assessee, for the very same issue and for the same period, if that be so, there cannot be any other view than to set aside the order - The first appellate authority had erred while holding that the appeal filed by the appellant as infructuous - Such an order was not sustainable and liable to be set aside Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues: Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, Appeal against Order-in-Original No.45/2012

The judgment pertains to a stay application filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs.7,77,800 with interest. The presiding judge, after hearing both sides, decided to dispose of the appeal itself at that juncture. The first appellate authority had earlier deemed the appeal as infructuous based on the repetition of adjudication for the same party, amount, issue, and period. However, the judge found errors in the first appellate authority's decision, stating that the appeal cannot be considered infructuous solely due to repetition. The judge highlighted that since the appellant was already before the Tribunal in another appeal against a similar order, there was no reason to sustain the lower authorities' decisions. Consequently, the judge set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal.

In this case, the primary issue revolved around the stay application for the waiver of pre-deposit of a substantial service tax amount. The judge, after a hearing, decided to proceed with the appeal itself, indicating a swift resolution of the matter. The crux of the matter lay in the first appellate authority's decision to treat the appeal as infructuous due to the perceived repetition of adjudication for the same party, amount, issue, and period. However, the judge disagreed with this assessment, pointing out that the mere existence of repetition does not render the appeal infructuous. The judge emphasized that since the appellant had already initiated another appeal against a similar order before the Tribunal, there was no justification to uphold the decisions of the lower authorities. Consequently, the judge set aside the lower authorities' orders and allowed the appeal to proceed.

The judgment highlighted a crucial discrepancy in the first appellate authority's reasoning regarding the appeal's infructuous nature. The judge noted that the first appellate authority erred in deeming the appeal as infructuous solely based on the repetition of adjudication for the same party, amount, issue, and period. The judge emphasized that such repetition does not automatically render an appeal irrelevant. Furthermore, the judge pointed out that since the appellant had already approached the Tribunal in another appeal concerning a similar order, there was no valid reason to uphold the lower authorities' decisions. As a result, the judge set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of a thorough and accurate assessment of the grounds for deeming an appeal infructuous.

---