9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s including corporate office. The Tribunal in their order dt.26.8.2013 also ordered predeposit in their own case. - Following the same, Partial stay granted. - Application Nos.E/MISC/40536, 40537/2015 in E/41366, 41367/2015 - MISC ORDER No.41292-41293/2015 - Dated:- 12-10-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member And Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri Kurian Thomas, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R. Subramanian, AC (AR) ORDER Per R. Periasami The present appeals are filed on 8.4.2015. The appeals were filed after amendment to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, w.e.f. 6.8.2014 without complying predeposit. Registry issued a defect memo for non-compliance of predeposit of 7.5% as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l vide above stay orders directed predeposit. He relied para-5 of the interim order wherein out of the total demand in respect of various services, the Tribunal directed the very same appellant to deposit ₹ 20 lakhs in relation to transportation of goods from Regional Distribution Centres to Retail outlets. He further submits that in the present case, the transportation amount is ₹ 2.5 lakhs. He also submits that the total credit distributed by ISD challan wise and also there is no dispute on the manner of distribution of credit as the credit was as per rule 7. of service tax attributable under service used exclusively exchanged in the manufacture of taxable service and not exempted service. 3.1 On the other hand, Ld.A.R subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015-TIOL-632-HC-KERALA-ST, which reads as follows:- 4. .. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner would have to deposit the amount of 7.5% of the tax confirmed against him, as a condition for pursuing the appellate remedy before the Tribunal. I note in this connection that recently, a Division Bench of the High Court of Telengana Andhra Pradesh has taken a prima facie view that, inasmuch as the lis in question had commenced prior to the introduction of the amendment to the Finance Act, 1994, with effect from August 2014, the petitioner's right of appeal as per the erstwhile provisions of law would not be affected by the provisions introduced by the amendment of 2014. Although not expressly referre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e waiver application by the Tribunal. I, therefore, relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy available under the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, of approaching the Appellate Tribunal by way of an appeal against Ext.P8 order. It is made clear that the appeal to be filed by the petitioner would be governed by the statutory provisions, as they stood prior to the amendment introduced with effect from 16.08.2014. Thus, without making any observations on the merits of the case, and without prejudice to all the contentions that the petitioner can take against Ext.P8 order of the 2nd respondent, I dismiss the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P8 order. I make it clear that, if the petitioner prefers a duly constituted appeal under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessees was that their right of appeal was governed by provisions as on the dates they filed their monthly returns which were prior to June 10, 1999, when there was no mandatory condition for pre-deposit of disputed tax before the appeal was lodged. On the other hand the Revenue contended that although the right of appeal was substantive, it vested in an assessee on the date when the order of final assessment was made under Section 12(2) of the Act or the order of reassessment was made under Section 16 of the Act, and, in any case, on the date when a notice of final assessment was issued under Section 12(2) or a show cause notice for reassessment was made under Section 16 of the Act. In that background, this Court has held that fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. On merits of waiver of predeposit, after examining their submissions and contentions we find that the Tribunal in their own case ordered predeposit in an identical issue. Therefore, appellants have not made out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit as the Tribunal vide order dt. 8.1.2013 in the above case ordered for predeposit of ₹ 15 lakhs on the identical issue of denial of cenvat credit of distributed by the ISD on various input services including corporate office. The Tribunal in their order dt.26.8.2013 also ordered predeposit in their own case. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to predeposit ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) within a period of six weeks from today and report compliance on 2.12.2015. Upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
