9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also the OrderinAppeal No. 184/2009 passed by the Commissioner [Appeals] in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant on noncompliance of the order of predeposit. 2. The facts leading to the present Tax Appeal and which are relevant for deciding the present Appeal, in nutshell, are as under : 2.1 That, by orderinoriginal dated 3rd June 2008, the Joint Commissioner, Service Tax, Ahmedabad confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 6,24,998/= and also imposed penalty of the like amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Service Tax, Ahmedabad dated 3rd June 2008 confirming the demand of service tax and imposing the penalty, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order on the stay application directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the service tax within eight weeks from 23rd August 2010. 2.5 That, the appellant submitted an application for modification of the order passed by CESTAT passed on stay application submitting that it is not possible for the appellant to even deposit 50% of the amount of service tax, as directed by the Tribunal. The said Misc. Application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide Order dated 14th June 2012. 2.6 That thereafter, appellant submitted Misc. Application for extension of time to deposit the amount [50% of the service tax liability] as ordered earlier on 23rd August 2010 and by the impugned Order, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application by observing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of Rs. 4,43,772/= which is already recovered - ie., Rs. 1,81,226/=] to show its bona fides and even ready and willing to pay reasonable cost, which may be directed to be paid by this Court. On the aforesaid, it is submitted that on deposit of the aforesaid, the appellant may be given an opportunity to submit its case before the first appellate authority. 4. Shri Yogesh Ravani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that as such both the Commissioner [Appeals] and the Tribunal have granted sufficient time to the appellant to make the deposit of predeposit. It is submitted that if the amount of Rs. 4,43,772/=, which is already recovered from the appellant is to be treated as predeposit, the appellant is liable to pay t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant on merits, it will meet with the ends of justice. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Tax Appeal succeeds. Impugned orders 2nd April 2013 and 5th August 2009 are hereby quashed. It is directed that on deposit of further amount of Rs. 1,81,226/= [being the balance amount towards tax liability under the orderinoriginal] with the Department within a period of four weeks from today, and on further deposit of a sum of Rs. 12,500/= towards cost with the Department, and on production of receipt of such deposits, the first appellate authority is directed to decide and dispose of the appeal preferred by the appellant against the orderinoriginal in accordance with law on merits. It is made clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
