9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evoid of merits and rejected – Decided against assesse - Service Tax Appeal No.3999 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2013 - G Raghuram And Sahab Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, CA . For the Respondent : Shri B B Sharma, AR PER : G Raghuram Review of the order dated 13.2.2013 passed in stay application No.5103 of 2012 by this Tribunal is the relief sought in this application. From sequence of facts pleaded in this application, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the adjudication order dated 14.12.2009 whereby the service tax liability of Rs.18,68,165/-was assessed apart from interest and penalty as specified therein. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed the adjudication order dated 14.12.2009 including the penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 but set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 by the adjudicating authority. 3. Along with the present appeal, the petitioner had filed a stay application in 2012 which was disposed of on 13.2.2013 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.5 lakhs as a condition for grant of waiver of pre-deposit of the adjudicated tax amount. Seeking recall/review of the stay order, the present application is filed. 4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant states that the order dated 13.2.2013 (directing deposit of Rs.5 lakhs) in the context of the earlier final order of the Tribunal dated 22.7.2011 (directing to pre-deposit 20% of the adjudicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of a further amount. The High Court observed that the appeal should have been heard without directing a further pre-deposit, as the assessee had earlier deposited Rs.20 lakhs, in the earlier appeal. 6. In the present case, the pre-deposit was not be made before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the petitioner herein, on account of pleaded financial stringency. This Tribunal accordingly directed pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) and remitted the matter for disposal of the appeal de - novo. 7. In the circumstances, we find no violation of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Super Tyres Ltd. The facts in the order dated 7.12.2007 in Hotline Display Devices Ltd . are identical, to the extent relevant for material, to the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
