2019 (3) TMI 866 - AT - Service Tax

Compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - Held that - It is appropriate to recall the order dated 13 October, 2017 by which the appeal was disposed of by granting liberty to the appellant to come back to the Tribunal after the final verdict from the High Court of Chhattisgarh - it is also directed that the amount of 10 % which the appellant has already deposited on 16 October, 2018 be considered as sufficient towards the requirement of pre- deposit as the appellant does have a prima facia case. Appeal be listed for final hearing on 12 March, 2019. at the top of the broad.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal for waiver of pre-deposit, challenge to tribunal orders, interpretation of statutory requirements, consideration of relevant documents, application of Supreme Court decision.

Analysis:

1. Appeal for Waiver of Pre-Deposit:
The appellant filed an appeal in 2010 seeking dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement. Various orders were passed by the Tribunal and High Court, leading to the appellant withdrawing and re-filing appeals. The appellant ultimately sought full waiver or a modified pre-deposit condition. The Tribunal considered the appellant's compliance with the amended Section 35(f) of the Act, requiring a 10% deposit of the appealed amount.

2. Challenge to Tribunal Orders:
The Tribunal's orders directing pre-deposit were challenged by the appellant before the High Court, resulting in withdrawals and subsequent appeals. The High Court granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again for satisfaction regarding the pre-deposit waiver. The appellant then filed the present application seeking recall, restoration, modification, and stay of previous orders, along with a full waiver of the pre-deposit condition.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Requirements:
The Tribunal analyzed the appellant's compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit and the amendment to Section 35(f) of the Act. The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument regarding the reimbursable expenses and the Supreme Court's decision in a relevant case, determining that the appellant had a prima facie case justifying a modified approach to the pre-deposit condition.

4. Consideration of Relevant Documents:
The appellant claimed that the issue of reimbursable expenses had been decided by the Supreme Court in a specific case, indicating a strong prima facie case. The Department's representative emphasized the need for the appellant to substantiate the claim by providing relevant documents. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for the appellant to support their claim with appropriate documentation.

5. Application of Supreme Court Decision:
The Tribunal considered the appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. Intercontinental Consultant and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument based on this decision and decided to recall the previous order, allowing the 10% deposit made by the appellant to suffice as per the amended statutory requirement.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the appellant's request for a modified approach to the pre-deposit condition based on the prima facie case established through the Supreme Court decision. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing, considering its age and the significant legal issues involved.