9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner without insisting on further pre-deposit of amount. 2. The petitioner had filed appeal against the common Order in Original Nos.14 to 16 of 2017 dated 10.02.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I) on 25.4.2017. 3. By the impugned communication dated 3.5.2017 bearing reference C.No.IV/2/10/2016 (STA) signed by the Superintendent of Service Tax (Appeals-II) attached to the office of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has been informed that these appeals filed by the petitioner shall not be entertained by the 1st respondnent Commissioner (Appeals) unless the petitoner deposits 7.5% of the impugned service track/penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it has actually deposited amounts in excess of 7.5% and therefore there is no justification in the impugned communication. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner, it will convince the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals I) regarding the payments made for the purpose of pre-deposit under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 8. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Office of the 1st respondent was directed to file a report regarding the amounts paid by the petitioner for the purpose of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act,1944. A report dated 28.10.2010 of the Superintendent (Legal) has been filed by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een numbered. However, there is delay. According to the Superintendent (Legal), there is a deficit of Rs. 1,57,574/- insofar as pre-deposit appeal against Order in Original No.14/2017 dated 10.02.2010 and therefore the petitioner should be called upon to pay a balance amount. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that if the petitioner pay the aforesaid deficit amounts of Rs. 1,57,574/- the appeal against Order in Original No.14/2017 dated 10.2.2017 all the 3 appeals filed by the petitioner will be numbered and taken up for final hearing. 11. According to the petitioner, the amount paid by the petitioner are as follows:- S.No. Amount paid towards O/O.No.14/2017 dt 10.02.2017 Amount paid towards O/O.No.15/2017 dt 10.02.2017 Am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in so as far as the Order in Original No.14/2017 is concerned as the report filed, it is noticed that the petitioner has paid amounts in excess in their appeal against the order in Original Nos.15 & 16/2017 for a sum of Rs. 74,825/- and Rs. 85,479/-. Thus, there is excess payment of Rs. 1,60,304/- by the petitioner which amount can be allowed to be adjusted against the amount of pre-deposit in the petitioner's appeal against Order in Original No.14/2017 dated 10.2.2017. 16. According to the petitioner, it has paid amounts in excess in their appeal against the order in Original No.14 of 2017 dated 10.02.2017. 17. The impugned communication dated 03.05.2017 also states that the appeal has been filed with a delay of one day. However, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
