Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 979 - AT - Service TaxStay application - Waiver of pre deposit - Held that - Appellant requested for keeping matter pending till similar petition gets decided - There is no logic for such request - appellant directed for 50% amount as pre deposit - Conditional stay granted.
Issues: Stay application non-representation, remand request logic, pre-deposit requirement justification, compliance timeline, order enforcement
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, delivered by Shri B.S.V. MURTHY, addressed various issues. Firstly, the appellant did not appear during multiple scheduled hearings, prompting the Tribunal to proceed without further adjournments. The appellant had submitted a request to keep the matter pending until a related issue was resolved by the original adjudicating authority, which the Tribunal found illogical due to lack of reasons for the delay. The appellant also failed to provide reasons for non-appearance or representation before the Tribunal. Secondly, the appellant sought an alternative prayer for remand without a pre-deposit. However, the Tribunal upheld its previous decision requiring a deposit of 50% of the demanded amount. The Tribunal emphasized the need for consistency in decisions and directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 6,00,00,000 within 8 weeks, with a strict compliance timeline. The Commissioner was instructed to adjudicate both matters together promptly, ensuring a decision within 3 months from the order date, provided the appellant complies with the pre-deposit requirement and cooperates in the proceedings. The judgment highlighted the substantial amount involved, the necessity for pre-deposit in remand cases, and the importance of timely compliance and cooperation from the appellant. Failure to deposit the amount would result in the order being vacated, leading to dismissal of the appeal and allowing the Revenue to recover the entire dues. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 01.07.2014, emphasizing the enforceability and immediacy of the directives given by the Tribunal.
|