9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Tribunal Act, 2005. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the absence of the requisite notification, the amendment has not been enforced so far. The said fact has not been disputed by Sri V.Gopala Krishna Gokhaley, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and therefore, we proceeded on merits. The facts in brief are as under: By orders dated 05.05.2010 and 06.05.2010, the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax held that the writ petitioners are liable to pay Service Tax specified therein together with the interest thereon and penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred two appeals before the CESTAT. It is to be noticed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and are accordingly dismissed. Consequently the interim stay granted on 18-5-2011 is dissolved. On condition of the petitioners depositing the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- each as directed by the impugned order of the Tribunal within four weeks from today and furnishing proof of such deposit to the Assistant Registrar of the CESTAT, Bangalore Bench within the period aforestated, the Tribunal shall take up adjudication of the appeals preferred by the petitioners, waiving the amount of pre-deposit in each of the appeals. In default of the petitioners depositing Rs.60,00,000/- each within the time stipulated herein, the appeals shall be returned for default in furnishing the pre-deposit amounts and the respective Orders-in-Original passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration and that the appeals were dismissed merely on the ground that the petitioners failed to comply with the requirement under Section 35F of the Act, the matter requires reconsideration. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded for consideration on merits. Having carefully gone through the judgment of the Division Bench in M.I.Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd's case, we respectfully disagree with the opinion expressed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. According to us, the condition prescribed under Section 35F of the Act that the person desirous of appealing against the order shall deposit the duty demanded or the penalty levied is mandatory. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
