2014 (10) TMI 648 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Modification of order - Held that - Order relies upon the decision of the Hon ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sai Samhita Storages (P) Ltd. 2011 (2) TMI 400 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT . Learned counsel fairly agrees that even though this decision has been mentioned in Appeal Memorandum and during the arguments it was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal nor it was pressed. It cannot be said that there is any apparent error in the order passed by the Tribunal. When there is no apparent error, if the order is modified, it would amount to review of the order of the Tribunal by the Tribunal itself for which the Tribunal has no power. Accordingly, no case has been made out for modification of the stay order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the application is rejected.

Summary

Issues: Modification of Tribunal order, consideration of subsequent development, financial difficulties, extension of time for deposit

Modification of Tribunal order:
The appellant sought modification of the Tribunal's order directing the deposit of Rs. One crore. The appellant argued that a subsequent decision in another case should have been considered, but the Tribunal found that the decision was not brought up during the proceedings, and therefore, there was no apparent error in the original order. The Tribunal held that modifying the order would amount to reviewing its own decision, which it does not have the power to do. Consequently, the application for modification was rejected.

Consideration of subsequent development:
The appellant contended that a subsequent decision should have been taken into account, but the Tribunal ruled that since this decision was not raised during the proceedings, it could not be considered a subsequent development. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant could have brought up this argument based on a previous High Court decision. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent error in the original order and rejected the application for modification.

Financial difficulties:
The appellant raised financial difficulties as a ground for modification. The Annual Report indicated that the appellant had made a profit and not incurred any losses. However, despite rejecting the application for modification, the Tribunal decided to grant the appellant eight weeks to deposit the balance amount in the interest of justice. The requirement for pre-deposit of balance dues was waived subject to compliance, and a stay against recovery was granted for 180 days from the date of the order.

Extension of time for deposit:
Even though the application for modification was rejected, the Tribunal exercised discretion and allowed the appellant additional time to deposit the balance amount. The Tribunal considered the interest of justice and granted an extension of eight weeks for the deposit, with a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement subject to compliance. Additionally, a stay against recovery was provided for 180 days from the date of the order to facilitate the appellant's compliance.