9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empted to deposit the amount on the due date i.e. 31/12/2013 but only due to system fault online, the respondent could not deposit the amount which is beyond their control. Therefore, it can be construed that there is no delay on the part of the respondent, hence though the payment finally made on 01.01.2014 the same can be treated as if, payment was made on 31/12/2013. - Decided against the revenue - Appeal No. ST/86723/15-Mum - Order No. A/86635/16/SMB - Dated:- 17-3-2016 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri B KumarIyer, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Jayesh M Gogri, CA ORDER Per Ramesh Nair This Revenue's appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APP/187/15-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal submits that due date i.e 31/12/13 provided for discharging 50% of the declared service tax due is mandatory under statute and same cannot be extended under any circumstances. In the present case, the respondent has admittedly paid the 50% dues only on 01/01/2014 therefore not complied with the condition of payment of 50% dues on or before 31/12/2013. He submits that Adjudicating authority has correctly followed the ratio of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment therefore Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is not in consonance with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in case of Teknow Overseas Ltd. (supra) hence the same is not sustainable and deserve to be set aside. 4. Shri Jayesh M Gogri, Ld. CA appearing on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eculiar facts of this case it can be construed that there is no delay on the part of the respondent, hence though the payment finally made on 01.01.2014 the same can be treated as if, payment was made on 31/12/2013. The judgment relied upon by the Original authority in case of Teknow Overseas Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the present case for the reason that fact of that case is different from the facts of present case. In the Teknow Overseas Ld. (supra) the assessee has knowingly asked for extension of time beyond the 31/12/2013 for deposit of part of 50% dues and deliberately not deposited the amount on or before 31/12/2013. In the present case there is no intention of the respondent to avoid payment of 50% of the declared dues on or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
