2019 (8) TMI 599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... predeposit condition has been complied with in full. But what happens post facto cannot cure the defect. On the date on which the appeal was dismissed by CESTAT by the impugned order, the appellant had not complied with the pre-deposit condition. The impugned order as such is unassailable. It is only because of this fact that the appellant has subsequently complied with the conditional order. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.J.Anil Kumar, learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3) The appellant suffered an order in original confirming the demand for service tax to the tune of ₹ 84,98,221/-. The order was dated 15.10.2013. 4) The appellant filed a statutory appeal before the CESTAT and CESTAT passed a conditional order on 04.02.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant seeks indulgence of this Court is that after the impugned order of the CESTAT, the predeposit condition has been complied with in full. But what happens post facto cannot cure the defect. On the date on which the appeal was dismissed by CESTAT by the impugned order, the appellant had not complied with the pre-deposit condition. Therefore the impugned order as such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X