|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 117 Records
-
2019 (9) TMI 1418 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the invoices duly certified by the Chartered Accountant which is mandatory for claiming of refund - HELD THAT:- There are no merits in the objection raised by the Lower Authorities. The intention and idea in getting every invoice certified is to establish that such services were used by the assessee for export purposes and in fact stands paid for by them. Instead of certifying each and every invoice individually and separately, if a consolidated certificate giving details of the invoices, stand given by the assessee, the same would fulfill the notification criteria.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1417 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Refund of service tax - time limitation - deposits made through challans not utilized towards payment of duty - relevant date of reckoning the time limit - section 11B of CEA - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the application of refund was rejected to the extent of ₹ 7,07,894/- on the ground of time bar. It is also not in dispute that this pertains to an amount deposited vide challan dated 17-5-2016 and the application for refund was filed beyond one year from the date of this challan. It is also evident that the appellant had raised some other grounds before the first appellate authority which are not part of the decision in the order-in-original rejecting their appeal.
As can be seen from clause (b) to proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B unspent advance deposits lying in balance in applicant’s current account are covered by Section 11B. Once they are covered by Section 11B it is not open for anyone to pick and choose which portion of Section 11B applies to them and which does not. The entire provisions of Section 11B apply in the absence of any specific clause indicating otherwise. The next question is the relevant date for reckoning the time limit in such cases, which has been defined in the explanation to Section 11B. Clause (f) of this explanation covers the present case i.e., “in any other case, the date of payment of duty”.
Since the date of payment of duty has yet to begun in case where an amount has been deposited only in the account current but has not been utilized towards payment of Service Tax, the relevant date has not yet begun in this case - application for refund is within the time limit and hence, needs to be sanctioned - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1414 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Condonation of delay of 161 days in filing of Appeal - HELD THAT:- Considering the difficulties faced by the applicant in raising required funds, we condone the delay and direct Registry to list the appeal for disposal in its turn.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1413 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Reverse Charge Mechanism - Online Information or database access or retrieval services, OIDAR - amount received from clients for displaying their advertisement on Appellant’s website under sale of space or time for advertisement service, SSTA - amount paid to stringers located outside India - subscription income received from clients under OIDAR - demand of Service Tax.
Amount paid to M/s. Reuters Ltd., UK and EPA, Germany under reverse charge under Online Information or database access or retrieval services, OIDAR - Ad-hoc exemption order - HELD THAT:- This precise issue came up for consideration in the case of the Appellant for the subsequent period i.e. 2010-12 in M/S UNITED NEWS OF INDIA VERSUS C.S.T. NEW DELHI [2017 (3) TMI 17 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - The Tribunal held that in view of the provisions of section 66A of the Finance Act, all the provisions of Chapter V shall have full force for charge and collection of service tax - Appeal allowed.
Business Support Service - amount received from clients for displaying their advertisement on Appellant’s website under sale of space or time for advertisement service, SSTA - HELD THAT:- The service received from the stringers is not categorized in any of the activities mentioned in the inclusion part of the definition of BSS under section 65 (104c) of the Act. Service tax, therefore, could not have been levied under BSS. The finding recorded in the impugned order that every service related to business or commerce is classifiable as BSS is not correct. Thus, the demand of service tax under the category of BSS cannot be sustained.
Amount received from the client for displaying their advertisement on the website of the Appellant under the category SSTA - HELD THAT:- This is an issue which needs to be examined afresh by the Commissioner on the basis of the documents on record and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.
Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1409 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Refund of Service Tax - reimbursement of travelling charges incurred by providing taxable service - rejection on the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - period from 2006-07 to 2008-09.
Time Limitation - service tax was not paid by the appellant whereas as per the order of the adjudicating authority, the appellant has paid the service tax along with interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The said demand was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 18.12.2013 and the refund claim was filed on 13.06.2014 by the appellant. These facts are not in dispute. Therefore, holding a part of refund claim barred by limitation shows non application of mind as it is settled law that if the amount of duty/tax in dispute has been settled by the higher forum as not payable. Therefore, the assessee is not required to file refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellant is not liable to pay service vide order dated 18.12.2013 - it is responsibility of the Revenue to grant refund claim to the appellant within three months from the date of the order whereas in this case, the appellant has forced to file refund claim which was ultimately filed on 13.06.2014. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be held barred by limitation.
Unjust Enrichment - HELD THAT:- The service tax in dispute was paid by the appellant along with interest and penalty during the pendency of their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the question of passing of tax burden on the service recipient does not arise. Moreover, with regard to the interest and penalty, the question of passing on the service recipient does not arise as none of the assessee can recover the amount of interest and penalty form the service recipient in law - the adjudication order itself shows that the appellant has not passed on the tax burden on the service recipient for the reimbursement of travelling charges. Therefore, the appellant is able to pass the bar of unjust enrichment.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1408 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Reverse Charge Mechanism - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service - deployment of the employees - appellant had incurred expenditure in foreign exchange towards payment of salary to the employees - HELD THAT:- The role of the man power recruitment or supply agency is confined to the area of recruitment or supplying of the man power to cater to the requirements to the service recipient. The man power supplied to the recipient of service is under the control and supervision of the agency, who deploys the same as per the directions of the recipient of service. Further, the agency has no obligation to pay the salary and other charges to the man power deployed by it. Considering the scope and ambit of the definition of “Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service”, the CBEC vide Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU dt. 27.7.2005 has clarified that in order to be categorized under such taxable service, the relevant aspect for consideration is that the staff are not contractually employed by the recipient, but come under his direction.
On perusal of the contract entered into between both the sides, we find that there is no existence of service provider-service recipient relationship. Further, the appellant had also separately entered into contract with the employees deputed by the group companies, providing for payment of salary and other benefits. Mere transfer of fund on security reason for the benefit of the family of the employees based in abroad cannot create the tax liability under such category of taxable service. It is not the case of Revenue that over and above the amount paid to the employees or their families, any other additional amounts were charged by the overseas entities or paid by the appellant towards such deployment of the employees. Thus, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the overseas group companies have provided the service of recruitment or supply of man power and the appellant should be liable to pay service tax as a recipient of such service under the reverse charge mechanism.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1395 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Refund of Service tax - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment - Works Contract - construction services to various Departments of U.P. Government - Section 102(2) of FA - N/N. 6/2015-ST dated 01/03/2015 effective from 01/04/2015 - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Rule 102 were specifically introduced in the Finance Act for refund of the service tax so paid, which was actually paid on account of inadvertant withdrawing of exemption. The contracts with the U.P. Government were inclusive of all taxes, thus, not attracting the provisions of unjust enrichment.
There are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1394 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Penalty - service tax paid on being pointed out, before issuance of SCN, but penalty was not deposited - license fee income received from the parties - commission income from Kashmir Government Emporium - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- As an admitted fact that an amount of ₹ 9,07,073/- was deposited by the appellant alongwith the interest vide GAR 7 challan dated 19th September, 2013. The show cause notice was issued on 23rd October, 2013. The payment thereof was made voluntarily by the appellant even before the issuance of show cause notice. In such circumstance, there appears no reason for imposition of penalty.
Though the adjudicating authorities below have formed an opinion about apparent suppression of facts on the part of the appellant, but it is an acknowledgement on part of the original adjudicating authority about the submission of the appellants since beginning that no service tax was received on either of the income which have been allegedly made liable to service tax and that the appellant was under bonafide impression to not to be liable to pay any service tax thereupon - the moment the shortcoming and liability was brought to the notice of the appellant, the same has been discharged even prior to issuance of show cause notice. Thus, this is not the case of suppression of facts.
Penalty set aside - the order appropriating the amount deposited by the appellant as a discharge of his liability towards impugned demand is hereby upheld - appeal allowed in part.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1393 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Legality of issuance of SCN - Section 73 of the Finance Act - Case of appellant is that the service tax amount, having been deposited by the appellant alongwith deposit of interest before the issuance of the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- The appellant is not disputing the confirmation of service tax which already stands deposited by them alongwith deposit of interest - In such a scenario, we fully agree with the appellant that there was no need to issue the show cause notice and the entire proceedings were deemed to have been concluded in terms of the provisions of Section 73.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1391 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund of service tax - export of services - rejection on the ground time limitation - case is that the application for seeking refund is of 4th January, 2007, hence, this amount is beyond the requisite period of one year from the date of payment of service tax - HELD THAT:- The period of one year for the impugned application shall be w.e.f December 2005 to December2006. The period of claim herein is w.e.f July, 2005 to November, 2006. Hence, the claim which is beyond one year of the date of application for refund is for the period w.e.f. July, 2005 to November, 2005 which comes to ₹ 1,72,125/-. It is observed that while adjudicating the said show-cause notice the original adjudicating authority has in addition to rejecting the claim of ₹ 1,72,125/- has rejected the entire claim not only ₹ 6,89,015/- for the remaining period from December, 2005 to November, 2006, it has also rejected the claim of ₹ 2,17,081/- for the period December, 2006 to February, 2007 as was not even file on 4th January, 2007 but on 18th December, 2007.
Thus, the adjudicating authority has committed an error while holding the entire amount of claim i.e. ₹ 6,89,015/- as filed beyond one year. Apparently, the claim for an amount of ₹ 1,72,125/- for the period July, 2005 to November, 2005 is beyond one year from 04.01.2017 the date of filing of the said refund claim.
The period of limitation applicable is whether one year of two years? - HELD THAT:- The provision of section 11B of CEA specifies that the application for seeking such refund can be made to the Assistant Commissioner before expiry of one year from the relevant date. Second proviso to this section makes it clear that this limitation of one year shall not apply only to the case where such duty/tax and interest has been paid under protest - once the notification is silent about any time limit and the notification is flowing from the statute having the above provision, the limitation of one year as mentioned in the above provision shall be applicable to the said notification.
For the application as the one in question, since it is maintainable under Section 11-B of Central Excise Act, irrespective out of the benefit flowing from the notification No. 11/2005 dated 19.04.200, the period of one year from the relevant date shall be applicable to claim the refund of the tax paid qua export of service.
In the present case apparently and admittedly, the application to claim refund was filed on 4th January, 200, the relevant date. Hence, the claim w.e.f January, 2006 cannot be held to be barred by time. Accordingly, it is the claim only for the period prior January, 2006 i.e. of ₹ 1,72,125/- out of ₹ 6,89,015/- for the period of July, 2005 to December, 2005 which is beyond one year of the impugned application. Hence, the order-under-challenge to the extent of denying the refund of ₹ 1,72,125/- is sustainable.
Denial of refund of ₹ 2,17,081/- for the period December, 2006 to February, 2007 - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the appellant was issued only one show cause notice i.e. of 10.04.2008 with only one objection i.e. denial of refund of ₹ 1,72,125/- (as was filed on 18.12.2007) also absolutely beyond the scope of show cause notice. The para-2 of the show cause notice as quoted in previous para of this order is again relied upon for the purpose. It becomes clear that demand of ₹ 2,17,081/- is absolutely beyond the scope of SCN, hence the confirmation is also not sustainable & is liable to be set aside.
Export of services or not - HELD THAT:- Even the original adjudicating authority, after considering the invoices tendered by the appellant in respect of the services and agreements/contracts entered into by them with the foreign clients, has itself concluded that the services as provided by the appellants are the taxable services for the purposes Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 is relevant.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1376 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Classification of services - Renting of immovable property service or storage and warehousing services - letting out godowns for storage purpose - demand along with interest and penalty- HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the appellant own case PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH [2018 (2) TMI 154 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where it was held that the appellants are engaged in the activity of providing of space for storage and warehousing as well as keeping the records thereof and providing insurance & security service. As the appellant is providing various other services apart from the space for storage, therefore, the services appropriately fall under the category of Storage and Warehousing Services. Further, as these services are for agricultural produce, which is not in dispute, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on Storage and Warehousing which has been exempted from service tax as per section 65 (105) zza) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Thus, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of ‘Renting of Immovable Property Service’ or under the category of ‘Storage and Warehousing Service’. As the same are exempted as per Clause (d) of Section 66D (Negative list of services) of the Finance Act, 1994 relevant for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2012 wherein the services relating to agriculture or agricultural produce by way of renting of leasing of vacant land with incidental its use is exempted from payment of service tax, therefore, the appellant are not liable to pay service tax.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1366 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Benefit of abatement in terms of N/N. 1/2006-ST dated March 01, 2006 - reversal of cenvat credit with interest attributable to inputs/input services - whether amounts to non-availment of credit or not - whether subsequent reversal of credit makes BHEL ineligible to benefit under the said Notification?
HELD THAT:- In the case of COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. PRECOT MERIDIAN LTD. [2015 (11) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] the benefit of exemption Notification No. 5/99-CE dated February 28, 1999 was available to the assessee therein subject to certain conditions being satisfied, one of which was that the assessee had not taken any modvat credit under Rule 57A or Rule 57B or Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the process of dyeing, printing, bleaching or mercerising in the manufacture of dyed, printed, bleached or mercerised yarn. The assessee had utilised the modvat credit in the previous two years prior to February 28, 1999 and while not availing or utilising any modvat credit after the issuance of the Notification, the assessee returned or paid back in January, 2005 even the earlier modvat credit it had taken and utilised - This decision fully covers the instant case and on respectful application thereof it is conclusive that the impugned order of the Commissioner is legal, valid and proper and that the instant appeal of the Revenue is without any merit or substance.
The other contention of the Revenue that BHEL could not furnish relevant records and particulars is also incorrect. The impugned order of the Commissioner and the findings contained therein clearly shows that the relevant records and particulars were before the Commissioner, which is perused and scrutinised to arrive at findings against each project as stated in the show cause notice. No material has also been disclosed by the Revenue in support of this contention. As such, this contention is unsustainable.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1357 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Business Auxiliary Service - commission received from the bank - whether the appellant was required to pay service tax on net amount of services received by them or on the gross value of the service tax received by them? - CBEC Circular No. 87/05/2006-ST dated 06.011.2006 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- On going through the circular, it is found that on 06.11.2006, revenue has explained that the appellant was required to pay service tax on gross amount, and thereafter, on 16.11.2006, the show cause notice was issued whereas the appellant was filing their ST-3 Returns regularly and paying service tax thereon, in that circumstances, the extended period of limitation is not invokable.
As the same view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of South City Motors Ltd [2011 (11) TMI 408 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], therefore, the show cause notice issued by the appellant is barred by limitation, hence, impugned demands are not sustainable as appeal succeeds on limitation.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1343 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Consulting Engineering Services - receipt of certain services in the realm of testing, valuation and consulting engineering from abroad, stretching between the period 01.04.2005 to 17.04.2005 - validity of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT:- here the collection of the tax is itself without the authority of law, then the refund of tax collected thus, is also not bound by the rigour of that law. The provisions of Section 11 B and the rigour/procedure thereof would not be applicable or attracted to the present case. Admittedly, the petitioner has suo motu, complied with the provisions of Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) and having done so, the petitioner should not be expected to suffer on account of compliance - this writ petition should succeed and the amount of tax remitted be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The collection of tax in terms of Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) prior to insertion of Section 66(A) is sans the authority of law. The petitioner is, without question, entitled to the refund sought for by it in this regard - the levy of interest would be justified for the period post the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 14.12.2009, confirming the position that the charge under Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) prior to the enactment of Section 66(A) is unconstitutional. Interest is awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from 05.05.2010 till date of payment - petition allowed in part.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1315 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Service tax on Ocean Freight - what is “CIF”, and how the CIF is different from the FOB contracts. - Striking down Rule 2(1)(d) (EEC) of the Service Tax Rules and Notification Nos.15/2017-ST and 16/2017-ST as ultra vires Sections 66B, 67 and 94 of the Finance Act, 1994, and ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India - striking down Rule (7CA) of the Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Explanation-V of Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 as ultra vires Sections 66B, 67 and 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 and ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India - validity of Circular No.206/4/2017-ST dated 13.4.2017
HELD THAT:- The service proposed to be taxed under the impugned provisions is admittedly that of transportation of goods upto the Indian Port i.e. land mass of the country; and this service covering sea transportation of hundreds or thousands of KMs is an event occurring beyond the land mass of the country, and hence in the nature of an extraterritorial event. The provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, which is an Act of the Parliament for levy of service tax, do not permit nor empower the Central Government to collect service tax on such extraterritorial events, and the services which are rendered and consumed beyond the land mass of the country.
The charging provision i.e. Section 66B provides for levy of service tax on the value of services provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another. Section 65B(52) defines “taxable territory” to mean the territory to which the provisions of this Chapter apply. As seen above, the provisions of this Chapter i.e. Chapter V, apply to the whole of India by virtue of Section 64(1) of the Finance Act; and thus it is the mandate of the Parliament for applying the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act for service tax to whole of India, and not to extraterritorial events occurring outside the land mass of India - In the present case, the Parliament has restricted the provisions of Chapter-V of the Finance Act in respect of service tax to events occurring in the taxable territory i.e. India by virtue of Section 66B (the charging section), Section 66B(52) and Section 64(1) and therefore the impugned Notifications issued by the Executive i.e. the Central Government by way of Rules, are beyond Sections 64, Section 66B and Section 65B(52) of the Finance Act. The impugned Rules and Notifications seek to levy and collect service tax on services rendered and consumed outside India, and therefore these provisions are ultra-vires the above referred three provisions of the Act made by the Parliament.
The impugned provisions i.e. Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) and Explanation-V to Notification No.30/2012-ST are ultra vires Section 65B(44) defining “service” and Section 68, and also Section 94 of the Finance Act - Rule 6(7CA) amended by the Central Government is also ultra vires Section 67 and Section 94 of the Finance Act.
The Notification Nos.15/2017- ST and 16/2017-ST making Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) and Rule 6(7CA) of the Service Tax Rules and inserting Explanation-V to reverse charge Notification No.30/2012-ST is struck down as ultra vires Sections 64, 66B, 67 and 94 of the Finance Act, 1994; and consequently the proceedings initiated against the writ applicants by way of show cause notice and enquiries for collecting service tax from them as importers on sea transportation service in CIF contracts are hereby quashed and set aside with all consequential reliefs and benefits - Application allowed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1253 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
GTA Service - Demand of service tax on transportation of palm oil fruit - whether the same is a fruit entitled for the exemption of N/N. 33/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004? - transport of fruits is exempted - HELD THAT:- Any produce of a tree which is the result of ripened ovary, irrespective of nature of it being edible or not, amounts to fruit. Admittedly, the product transported in the present appeal is palm oil fruit. The photographs as produced by the appellant during the arguments also support the opinion as formed.
Thus, the fruit in question is very much covered by the notification. The adjudicating authorities below are therefore held to have formed a very rigid and narrow description of the fruit.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1217 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Classification of services - port services or not - providing Stevedoring Services which include the work of unlashing / lashing of containers in vessels for discharge of import and export containers - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Larger Bench in the case of WESTERN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE [2011 (3) TMI 528 - CESTAT, CHENNAI (LB)] it was held that the service provided “in any manner” serves the purpose of serving the clients of stevedore in relation to goods or services indirectly through stevedores. Therefore, the service provided by stevedores fall under the class of port service and taxable - thus, the services rendered by the appellant fall under ‘Port Services’.
Extended period of limitation - period involved is 16/07/2001 to 31/12/2005 whereas SCN was issued on 11.10.2006 - HELD THAT:- It cannot be alleged that there was suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant - as mens rea is not established, penalties are liable to be set aside - the matter requires to be remanded to the Original Authority for computing the duty demand for normal period.
The appeal is allowed partly and remanded to the original authority for computation of duty demand for normal period - penalties set aside.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1213 - SUPREME COURT
Liability of tax - Monetary limit - Tour Operator Services - It is submitted that instead of multiplying the proceedings, it is but appropriate that the Department takes a holistic view of the matter and make appropriate statement before this Court on the next occasion - HELD THAT:- We defer the hearing of these matters till 7th November, 2019, to be listed in the miscellaneous list under caption ’For Directions’.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1203 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Territorial Jurisdiction of tribunal - assessee is situated in Gurgaon - order was passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax at Gurgaon - appeal lies before Delhi bench of tribunal or Chandigarh bench of tribunal - HELD THAT:- In Ambica Industries [2007 (5) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT], on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the Appellant, the issue was regarding determination of the High Court before which Appeals would lie under Section 35G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellant carried business at Lucknow and the matter was ultimately decided by the Tribunal at New Delhi since the Tribunal at New Delhi exercised jurisdiction in respect of cases arising within the territorial limits of Uttar Pradesh, National Territory of Delhi and the States of Maharashtra.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant is situated in Gurgaon and the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax at Gurgaon. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Ambica Industries cannot be pressed by the Appellant to contend that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi would have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The jurisdiction to hear the appeal would lie with the Regional Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh.
The records of the appeal shall, therefore, be sent to the Regional Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1195 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Maintainability of appeal - requirement of pre-deposit - section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The maintainability of appeal, with concurrent stay of recovery of remaining demand and/or fines/penalties, are subject to pre-deposit prescribed in section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Prior to such prescription, the Tribunal was vested with discretion to stay further recovery till the outcome of the appeal was decided subject to such pre-deposit as was prescribed by the Tribunal.
In the changed circumstances of statutory disbarment of recovery beyond that prescribed in section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, an application for early disposal is not only a circumventing of this statutory disbarment but also directly in breach of legislative disbarment.
A plea by Revenue based only on revenue consideration for early hearing of appeal of assessee or individual does not merit consideration.
Application rejected.
|
