9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal"), directing the Appellant to deposit the entire amount of service tax of Rs.10,04,928/for the purpose of hearing the appellant's appeal on merits. 2 During the pendency of the present appeal, the Tribunal on 3 July 2013, dismissed the appellant's appeal on account of nondeposit of service tax of Rs.10,04,928/as directed by its order dated 14 May, 2013. The appeal was dismissed on 3 July 2013 for nondeposit, even though a short adjournment was sought from the Tribunal on the ground that the appeal from the order dated 14 May 2013 had come up for hearing before this Court on 2 July 2013 and it had been posted for hearing on 3 July 2013. In these circumstances, when on 4 July 2013 the appellant pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Act for the services of GTA received by it during period 1 April 2005 to 31 October 2006. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise by order dated 30 March 2012, confirmed the demand of service tax invoking the extended period of limitation and also imposed equivalent penalty of Rs.10,04,928/under Section 78 of the said Act. The demand for extended the period for the limitation as well as the penalty was confirmed on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the receipt of the GTA services by it. 7 In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 17 October 2012 upheld the service tax confirmed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that there was suppression of facts by the appellant. However, the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, their case is squarely covered under the provisions of Section 80 of the Act and no penalty needs to be imposed on the Appellant in this case". 8 The Appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 17 October 2012 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed stay application for waiver of predeposit of service tax and interest. We are informed that no appeal has been preferred by the revenue from the order dated 17 October 2012 of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act. 9 We find that the condition for invocation extended the period of limitation as provided under Section 73 of the Act and the condition precedent for imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve Sugar Mills 2010 (19) S.T.R. 435 and Lakshminarayana Mining Co. 2009 (16) S.T.R. 691. The revenue has not been able to dispute the above position. 10 In the above circumstances, we are of a prima facie view that the appellant's appeal against order dated 17 October 2010 be heard on merits without requiring any predeposit of service tax.
11 Accordingly, the order dated 3 July 2013 and the order dated 14 May 2013 of the Tribunal directing predeposit of Rs.10,04,928/are set aside. Further, the Tribunal is directed to hear the appellant's appeal from order dated 17 October 2012 of Commissioner (Appeals) on merits without insisting any predeposit.
12 Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
