9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS, SERVICE TAX, DELHI SOUTH [ 2024 (3) TMI 854 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has observed that there is no provision of using DRC-03 for the purpose of pre-deposit. Apparently and admittedly, DRC-03 is not the challan generated on CBIC GST/( ICE GATE), e-payment portal. Resultantly, it becomes clear that there was no payment of pre-deposit amount i.e. 7.5% of the amount equivalent to 7.5% of the demand confirmed vide the impugned OIO, at the time of filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Since it was statutory payment there was no mandate on Commissioner (Appeals) to specifically notify the non-payment of amount of pre-deposit prior rejecting the appeal on the said ground. Hence even if the letter dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2022. The appeal against the said order has been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) vide order No.147-22-23 dated 16.03.2023. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. R.M. Saxena Mr. Deepak Kumar Vishnoi, ld Counsels for the appellant and Mr. V.J. Saharan, Authorised Representative for the Department. 3. Ld. Counsels have mentioned that at the time of filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant had made the payment of the amount of pre-deposit through DRC-03 form: The said appeal was received by the office of Commissioner (Appeals) without raising any objection about mode of paying pre-deposit amount. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal while relying upon the instructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Goods Service Tax, Delhi South in appeal Dy. No.52111 52128 of 2023. 5. Having heard the rival contentions, I observe from the decisions placed on record by ld. DR that the issue about making payment of amount of pre-deposit by way of DRC-03 challan is no more res-integra. 6. I note that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the following cases had held that the payment made through DRC-03 is not permissible under Section 35F. 1. Tina Rubber Infrastructure Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods, Service Tax, Delhi South in Service Tax Defect Diary No. 51243 of 2023 dated January 22, 2024 2. TPL Plastech Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods, Service Tax, Dehradun in Excise Defect Diary No. 500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case though the Counsel for appellant has taken the plea that this Instruction dated 28.10.2022 was never brought to his notice but apparently there can be no denial to the Circular No.1070/3/2019 dated 24.06.2019 vide which the revised procedure for making payments of Central Excise and Service Tax arrears was conveyed directing the tax payers to excess CBIC-GST Portal/(ICE GATE), the e-payment portal. The payments were directed to be made by creating a challan. The instruction dated 28.10.2022 is in continuous to the said circular. Apparently and admittedly, DRC-03 is not the challan generated on CBIC GST/( ICE GATE), e-payment portal. Resultantly, it becomes clear that there was no payment of pre-deposit amount i.e. 7.5% of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
