9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 140 - AT - Service TaxRejection of appeal - non-fulfilment of conditions of pre-deposit as per section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service tax by virtue of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - It is found that now before filing the present appeal before the Tribunal the appellant has made pre-deposit equal to 10% of the tax demanded in terms of Section 35F Central Excise Act, 1944 and thus complied with the mandatory pre-deposit. This case needs to be remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the same on merits. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to decide the appeal within the period of two months after the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Appeals is allowed accordingly by way of remand.
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions u/s 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applied to service tax u/s 83 of Finance Act, 1994.
Summary: The case involved an appeal against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit conditions as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applied to service tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, engaged in providing cable services as a local cable operator, was issued a show cause notice for the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 6,06,098/- along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading to the appellant's appeal, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The appellant, after the rejection of the appeal, made a pre-deposit equal to 10% of the tax demanded before filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The counsel for the appellant argued that the appeal should be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits since the appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The Departmental Representative also agreed to the remand for a decision on merits. Upon considering the submissions and the record, the Tribunal found that the appellant had now complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement by making the necessary payment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to decide the appeal on merits within two months of receiving the order. The appeal was allowed accordingly by way of remand.
|
