TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the stay application first by passing a speaking order thereafter applicants are required to make pre-deposit - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/610/2011 - A/421/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 10-5-2012 - S/Shri Ashok Jindal, P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.P. Kolte, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Navneet, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. Appellants are in appeal along with stay application for waiver of the dues adjudged in the impugned order. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that by the impugned order, their appeal has been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Commissioner (Appeals) on 25-7-2011 and in paragraph 3 of the stay order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under :- I have carefully gone through the records and written submission of the appellant. I find that as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to the Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, the tax confirmed or penalty imposed is required to be deposited before the appeal is taken up. In the instant case, the appellant failed either to deposit the full tax ordered to be recovered by the original authority along with due interest or the penalty imposed upon them. An amount of Rs. 5,48,742/- against the demand of Service Tax and Rs. 1,01,641/- against the recovery interest is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver of pre-deposit. 7. We have also gone through the orders passed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CEAT Ltd. (supra) and Velcord Textiles (supra), wherein when the matter came up before the Hon ble High Court, the Hon ble High Court has taken a serious view in paragraph 6 in the case of CEAT Ltd. (supra), which is reproduced hereinunder :- 6. We have carefully considered the rival submission of both the parties. This is not the first case where we are confronted with an order on application for dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and stay of the disputed demand pending hearing of the appeal, which is mechanical and without application of mind. During the last ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
