2017 (2) TMI 576 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - failure to comply with the interim stay order - Natural justice - Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, was the Tribunal justified in passing the initial as also the further orders without hearing the Appellant-Assessee and ex-parte? - Held that - Since the order in-original passed by the Commissioner would gain finality and the Appellant s valuable right of Appeal would be lost, the interest of justice would be served if the Appellant deposits a sum of ₹ 60 lakhs within three months and report compliance to the Tribunal s registry, for reviving its Appeal before the Tribunal - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench; Ex-parte orders without hearing the Appellant-Assessee; Revival of Appeal before the Tribunal by depositing a sum of ?60 lakhs within three months.

Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay pertains to an appeal challenging the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench on 1st September, 2014. The original order in question was dated 30th September, 2013, delivered by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III. The Appellant had initially deposited 1/3rd of the tax demand but failed to arrange for payment of the balance, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without any adjudication on merits. The key issue raised in this case was whether the Tribunal was justified in passing ex-parte orders without hearing the Appellant-Assessee.

The High Court, after hearing both sides, concluded that the Appeal raised a substantial question of law regarding the Tribunal's actions. To serve the interest of justice and prevent the loss of the Appellant's right to appeal, the Court directed the Appellant to deposit a sum of ?60 lakhs within three months and report compliance to the Tribunal's registry for the revival of the Appeal. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal on the condition of the said deposit, emphasizing that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the Appeal without adjudication on merits.

In summary, the High Court's judgment focused on ensuring procedural fairness and upholding the Appellant's right to appeal by providing an opportunity to revive the Appeal before the Tribunal through a specified deposit within a set timeframe. The Court's decision aimed at balancing the interests of justice while addressing the procedural irregularities in the Tribunal's ex-parte orders.