2018 (3) TMI 24 - AT - Service Tax

Non-compliance with pre-deposit - appellant has placed on record the proof of the pre-deposit of the said amount as per the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) within the time given by him - Held that - dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit is not sustainable in law as the appellant has in fact complied with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the pre-deposit - we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the same on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal for non-compliance of pre-deposit order.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.11.2014, which dismissed the appellant's appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The appellant had provided real estate agent services without obtaining service tax registration, leading to a demand being confirmed against them. The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the appellant to make specific pre-deposits towards duty, interest, and penalty, which the appellant claimed to have complied with by depositing the required amounts within the given timeframe. However, despite the appellant's compliance and submission of proof, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed made the pre-deposit as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of non-compliance when the appellant had fulfilled the pre-deposit order was legally unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits, emphasizing the importance of following natural justice principles and providing the appellant with an opportunity to present supporting documents.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, highlighting the Tribunal's intervention to rectify the dismissal based on non-compliance, recognizing the appellant's adherence to the pre-deposit order and emphasizing the need for a fair consideration of the case on its merits, ensuring procedural fairness and adequate opportunity for the appellant to present their case effectively.