9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplying with the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, by this Court, notwithstanding the specific time stipulations mentioned therein. Further, the appellant company was well aware that the Appellate Tribunal had made it clear that in the event it failed to deposit 50% of the assessed tax liability plus proportionate interest within eight weeks from the date of the order, the stay would stand dissolved. Having failed to safeguard its own interest by complying with the conditional stay orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, by this Court, the appellant company cannot seek further indulgence. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the appellant company did not at least deposit 50% of the Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed tax liability plus the proportionate interest thereon, excluding the components of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, within eight weeks from that day. The matter was directed to be listed on 30-9-2013 for reporting compliance. The Appellate Tribunal also made it clear that in the event of default in making the deposit within the time stipulated, the stay granted would stand dissolved without further reference to it. The order also recorded that the counsel for the appellant company was present to note the order and thereby, sufficient intimation was given to it of its obligations thereunder. 3. Aggrieved by the conditions imposed, the appellant company filed CEA No. 39 of 2013 before this Court under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but when the matter was called for noting compliance, there was no representation for the appellant company. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the record contained a Memo filed by the appellant company stating to the effect that an appeal had been filed before the High Court; that the appeal was heard on 24-9-2013; that notice was ordered to the Revenue; and that the appellant company had sought eight weeks time to report compliance. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the eight weeks sought by way of the said Memo had expired long back and dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 35F of the Act of 1944, made applicable to Service Tax matters. 6. The appellant company thereupon sought restoration of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-4-2014 dismissing the appeal and Miscellaneous Order dated 16-9-2014 refusing to restore it, the appellant company filed CEA No. 84 of 2017 before this Court under Section 35G of the Act of 1944. The substantial question of law sought to be raised by the appellant company in the said CEA reads as under : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Tribunal is correct in rejecting the Restoration of Appeal Application filed by the Appellants on the ground that the Appellants delayed in complying with the directions of the Hon ble High Court? 8. Perusal of the Docket Order dated 16-11-2017 passed in CEA No. 84 of 2017 reflects that this Court noted that as the appellant company failed to comply with the order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... event it failed to deposit 50% of the assessed tax liability plus proportionate interest within eight weeks from the date of the order, the stay would stand dissolved. Significantly, when this Court modified the aforestated order and waived the interest component fully, the appellant company did not even ask for extension of time to make the deposit of 50% of the Service Tax component. However, this Court specifically observed that the rest of the order of the Appellate Tribunal would remain as it was. In effect, the appellant company was bound to comply with the time stipulation of the Appellate Tribunal insofar as deposit of 50% of the tax component was concerned. Further, this Court made it clear that waiver of the interest component wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore too late in the day for the appellant company to come before this Court to claim further indulgence. 12. As already pointed out, it was only after this Court observed that no steps had been taken to seek extension of time for complying with the order dated 5-12-2013 in CEA No. 39 of 2013 that the appellant company filed I.A. No. 1 of 2017 therein seeking condonation of the delay of 1170 days. The delay in presenting this application must also weigh against the appellant company. Despite taking an adjournment on 16-11-2017 in CEA No. 84 of 2017 for taking such steps, it was only on 20-12-2017 that the condone delay petition was filed and upon its return with objections, it was represented only on 5-2-2018. This added laxity on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
