TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot required to go into these contentions or any wider controversy simply because in this statutory appeal, this court is only concerned with the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal. - The statutory mandate is clear. So long as the Parliament has not intervened and to take any steps to amend or clarify the legal position, we are obliged to hold that the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessees without adjudication on merits. Tribunal's order granting conditional stay has been complied with albeit belatedly. We also find that presently the Appellant is facing difficulties on account of the attachment of their bank accounts. They have also found that certain recoveries and from their customers are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within eight weeks from today. 2. Thus, when the Appeal was filed by the Appellants it was entertained by the Tribunal. That Appeal challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune-1. This order dated 31st October 2012 was challenged in the Appeal under section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 filed in the said Tribunal. The Appeal was given a temporary registration number being ST/85563 of 2013. 3. In that Appeal, the period of dispute was 2010-11. Further, apprehending recovery by coercive means and insisting compliance with the condition of pre-deposit of entire tax amount, an application for stay was preferred in the Appeal by the appellant on which a stay order was passed on 18th June 2013 and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS reported in 2014 (310) Excise Law Times 209 concludes this issue. 6. Mr. Rao learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue on the other hand would submit that the Tribunal's order requires no interference as it raises no substantial question of law. 7. After having heard both sides the Appeal requires to be admitted as it raises following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether Tribunal was right in law dismissing the Appellant's Appeal under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, read with Section 83 of Finance Act, when modification of Application which was pending for hearing for modifying the order of the pre-deposit of Service Tax liability with interest; (b) Whether the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Mr.Rao learned counsel was given time by this Court's order dated 23rd March 2015 to seek instructions. 10. Thereafter two affidavits have been filed one by Mr.Rao learned counsel and other in rejoinder by the appellants. Compliance is reported by the Appellant of the order passed by the Tribunal while granting a conditional stay. However, the revenue insists that such a compliance will not in any manner mean that further recurring liability is effaced or wiped out. The argument that neither the liability nor recovery of the sums in relation thereto can be stopped or interfered with merely because, an Appeal and for earlier period is pending. 11. We are not required to go into these contentions or any wider controversy simply b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
