2018 (10) TMI 836 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Pre-deposit - non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit as provided in Section 35F for hearing the appeal on merits - Held that - As per Section 35F the appellant is required to make a mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5%/10% of the duty in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute or penalty where such penalties are in dispute - Since in the present case the appellant admittedly has not made mandatory pre-deposit and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. This appeal has been filed after the amendment in Section 35F whereby mandatory pre-deposit has made compulsory in order to entertain and decide the appeal on merits - appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demands related to Service Tax and penalties.
2. Compliance with mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F for filing an appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original confirming demands for Service Tax and penalties. The demands included Service Tax amounts along with Cess on specific contributions collected by the appellant for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16 under relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The demands also covered appropriate interest rates and penalties imposed under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant challenged the order on grounds of not providing services as defined in the Finance Act and raised other objections against the demands made by the Revenue.

2. The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F before filing the appeal. Section 35F mandates a pre-deposit of a certain percentage of duty or penalty in dispute for the appeal to be maintainable. The appellant did not make the necessary pre-deposit, making the appeal non-maintainable as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the failure to meet the pre-deposit requirement rendered the appeal not maintainable. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the non-compliance with Section 35F, which was made compulsory post-amendment to entertain and decide appeals on merits.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the confirmation of demands and penalties, as well as the significance of compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F for filing an appeal in the context of the Central Excise Act, 1944.