9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant was also ready and willing to pay reasonable cost for remanding the matter to the first appellate authority - Further deposit as balance tax liability and deposit towards cost if the impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to consider the appeal of the appellant on merits, it will meet with the ends of justice. The amount already recovered by the Department from the appellant be treated as recovery of service tax from the appellant, payable under the order in original - On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the appellant to submit an appropriate application before the original authority to defreeze the bank accounts and the appropriate authority was directed to defreeze the bank accounts whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner [Appeals] disposed of the stay application and directed the appellant to deposit entire amount of service tax and interest thereon under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and on that stayed further implementation of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner. It appears that as the financial condition of the appellant was not sound, as it is evident from the balance sheet of the appellant at the relevant time, the appellant submitted Misc. Application before the Commissioner [Appeals] requesting to modify the order of deposit of entire tax liability directed to be deposited as a predeposit. 2.3 By Order dated 29th April 2009, the Commissioner [Appeals] dismissed the said Misc. Application. It appears that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage, it is required to be noted that in the meantime and after the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner [Appeals], the Department initiated recovery proceedings to recover the amount as per the orderinoriginal and according to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 4,43,772/= has already been recovered from it. At that stage, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present Tax Appeal. 3. Shri D.K Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that as such, it was not possible for the appellant at the relevant time to deposit even 50% of the service tax, as ordered by the Tribunal. It is submitted that as such there was no other mala fide intention on the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so ready and willing to deposit/pay the reasonable cost, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is requested to pass an appropriate order. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. 4. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it emerges from the record that earlier, the appellant could not comply with the order passed by the Commissioner [Appeals] as well as the order passed by the Tribunal of predeposit due to financial crunch. The financial difficulty/financial position of the appellant is evident from the balance sheet of the appellant, which is placed on the record. It appears that in the meantime, a substantial amount towards tax liability ie., Rs. 4,43,772/= is already recovered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
