9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y HIGH COURT], we are of the view that appellant is liable to comply the directions issued by the appellate Tribunal regarding deposit of Service Tax amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant further opportunity to appellant to deposit balance amount with appellate Tribunal and further direct the Tribunal to take decision in the matter on its own merit and in accordance with provisions of law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit of Service Tax amount without considering decision of the Division Bench in the matter of M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (First Appeal No. 706/2011 with C.A. No. 5013 of 2011) delivered on 20th July, 2011, remanding the proceeding back to the Tribunal for consideration as to whether the Tribunal needs to apply uniform criteria while issuing direction for making pre-deposit of amount during pendency of appeal? 5. Learned counsel for appellant has vehemently contended that in identical circumstances appellate authority had granted interim stay on condition of deposit of ₹ 1,00,000/- however, the Tribunal has applied different parameters in case of appellant and directed to deposit whole of the Service Tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment in the matter of Orange City Alloys Private Limited and Others v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, decided on 10-12-2011 wherein referring to the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench has observed in paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment thus : 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has submitted that this Court may pass a similar order, in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench at Aurangabad on 20 July, 2011, remanding the proceedings back to the Tribunal. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the Revenue that - (1) The order of the CESTAT in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2011 (263) E.L.T. 606 = 2010 Indlaw CESTAT 1279 and Mithulal Gupta Bhavshakti Steelmines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 20 July, 2011 in SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (First Appeal 706 of 2011 with C.A. No. 5013 of 2011). This is not a case where the Tribunal had not taken into account its earlier decision in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 Indlaw CESTAT 1279. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal in the course of its impugned decision did refer to the earlier decision in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 Indlaw CESTAT 1279, but observed as follows : "Again, the Apex Court's order in M/s. Bhagwati Ispat case lends great support to the Revenue in the present batch of appeals. We may also point out that Bhagwati Ispat case was not brought to our notice when the stay order was passed on 9-7-2010 in the case of Nashik Strips Ltd. (supra). 9. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraph No. 28 of the judgment thus : 28. For all the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question referred to us by holding that the Aurangabad Bench in the case of M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was not justified in remanding the proceedings back to the CESTAT for reconsideration without expressing its view as to the validity of the impugned order dated 28th February, 2011 or the validity of the orders of the CESTAT in the case of Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Mithulal Gupta (supra). Accordingly, we hold that the decision of the Aurangabad Bench cannot be treated as precedent and the Division Bench of this Court would be within its power to dispose of the appeals on its own merits without being bound by the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
