9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 2. The above appeals are filed raising the following substantial questions of law : "CMA.No.2734 of 2018 : i. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the application praying for restoration of appeal was made with a delay of about 5 years, when the appellant established that the original order of the Tribunal was not served on the appellant, but served on 22.3.2018 when requested by the appellant through RTI application ? and ii. Whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the restoration application filed by the appellant on mere assumption without going into the merits of the claim that the demand is contrary to the instructions of the Board dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30.4.2010 in terms of the Proviso to Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. As against the Order-in-Original dated 30.4.2010, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application for stay. The Tribunal, by order dated 15.1.2013, found that the appellant made out a prima facie case, as they placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of LCS City Makers Private Limited Vs. CCE [reported in (2012-TIOL-618- CESTAT-Mad.] and directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the service tax demanded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order dated 15.1.2013. The matter was directed to be listed on 04.3.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Finance Act and if this provision is applied, 90% of the demand made in the Order-in-Original dated 30.4.2010 would not survive. 9. The Tribunal heard both the miscellaneous applications and dismissed the application for restoration by order dated 16.7.2018, which is impugned before us in one of the appeals without rendering any finding in the modification application. 10. We have heard Mr.K.Jayachandran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Syed Noorullah Sheriff, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepting notice for the Revenue. 11. Considering the fact that though the Tribunal noticed that the appellant filed two miscellaneous applications, one of them is with a prayer to modify the stay order passed by the Tribunal dated 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
