9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 332 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre deposit - whether pre-deposit of 7.5% of the impugned service tax liability in terms of Section 35F (as amended w.e.f. 06.08.2014 of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is required to be made while filing appeals against order-in-original dated 30.09.2014 when the Show Cause notice in respect thereof was issued before 06.08.2014 - Held that - Allahabad High Court after inter alia considering the judgements of Kerala High Court in the case of Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors 2015 (3) TMI 634 -Kerala High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K Rama Mohanarao Vs. Union of India (2015 (4) TMI 813 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT) and the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. (supra) came to a clear finding that mandatory pre-deposit is required to be made in respect of the appeals filed on or after 06.08.2014. Defect memos requiring the appellants to make pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as amended with effect from 06.08.2014) read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is upheld - Decided against assessee.
Issues involved:
- Whether pre-deposit of 7.5% of the impugned service tax liability is required while filing appeals against order-in-original dated 30.09.2014 when the Show Cause notice was issued before 06.08.2014. Detailed Analysis: The appellant argued that mandatory pre-deposit is not required as per judgments of Kerala High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court, citing the case of Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors and M/s A.M. Motors Vs. Union of India. They also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Pradip J. Mehta Vs. CIT, Ahmedabad, emphasizing that when two interpretations are possible, the court should interpret in favor of the taxpayer. Additionally, they relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh to support their case. The Departmental Representative contended that the issue was settled by the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Ganesh Yadav Vs. Union of India, stating that the judgments of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts do not support the non-applicability of mandatory pre-deposit under the amended Section 35F. The Tribunal considered both arguments and referred to a previous judgment in the case of MTNL Vs. CST, Delhi, where it was held that appeals filed after 06.08.2014 must be accompanied by mandatory pre-deposit. The Tribunal acknowledged the judgments cited by the appellant but maintained that the requirement of pre-deposit stands as per the amended Section 35F. Regarding the argument of two possible interpretations favoring the appellant, the Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court's observation on tax provisions did not apply to the present case. The Tribunal highlighted that the Allahabad High Court, after reviewing relevant judgments, concluded that mandatory pre-deposit is necessary for appeals filed post 06.08.2014. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the defect memos requiring appellants to make pre-deposit in accordance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended from 06.08.2014, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
|
