9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 785 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary services - Short payment of service tax - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT - The matter has been adjourned considerable number of times in past on the request of both the sides. For this reason why we had made it clear vide our order on 23 rd September 2021, that no further request for adjournment from either of side shall be entertained and the matter shall be taken up for hearing next time. About ₹ 227 crore of Service Tax with interest and equivalent amount of penalty is involved in the matter. The Appellant, M/s Air India is Public Sector Undertaking (as it was at the time of adjudication and till recently) and Ministry of Finance are respondent in matter. Both arms of Central Government litigating the matter for what reason and Counsels appointed by both the sides seeking adjournments after adjournments do not benefit the cause of litigants. Fairly such protracted and continued litigation between the arms of the government do not benefit the cause of public exchequer and shakes the faith of the public in the entire system. Taking note of the Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982, we dismiss this appeal for non prosecution - Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Demand of service tax and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II. 2. Appeal against the Order in Original No 02/AC/COMMR/Th-II/ST/2015. 3. Non-appearance and repeated adjournments leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Issue 1: Demand of Service Tax and Penalties: The Commissioner determined and confirmed a service tax demand of &8377; 227,24,91,160 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, to be recovered from M/s Air India Limited. Additionally, penalties were imposed under Sections 78, 77(1)(a), 77(1)(c), and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand was related to Business Support Services provided by the appellant to M/s Air India Charters Limited for the period from October 2007 to March 2012. The appellant challenged this order through an appeal. Issue 2: Appeal Against the Order in Original: The appeal was listed before the Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT Mumbai, where the appellant's Chartered Accountant sought an adjournment due to the unavailability of a partner from their firm. However, the Tribunal had previously made it clear that no further adjournments would be allowed. Despite this, the Chartered Accountant failed to make any submissions on behalf of the appellant. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, emphasizing the importance of timely justice delivery and discouraging repeated adjournments that hinder the legal process. Issue 3: Non-Appearance and Repeated Adjournments: The Tribunal highlighted the adverse impact of repeated adjournments on the justice delivery system, citing cases where appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution due to lack of preparedness or repeated adjournment requests. The Tribunal expressed concern over the significant amount of service tax involved in the case, the involvement of two arms of the Central Government in litigation, and the filing of an infructuous application for early hearing. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in line with the CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982, and rejected the Miscellaneous Application seeking early hearing as infructuous. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the issues related to the demand of service tax, penalties imposed, the appeal process, non-appearance, and the impact of repeated adjournments on the legal proceedings.
|
