TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to deposit of amount. Be that as it may, the appeal was filed against the order in original on contentious issues. The main contention of the appellant is that even the service of Showcause Notice was not made. The order in original is an exparte order. To test the bona fides of the appellant, on the last date we had asked the learned Counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order in original is passed. The appeal was filed along with the application for condonation of delay and the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount. 2. The CESTAT found the reasons given for condonation of delay to be sufficient and condoned the delay, however, directed the applicant to deposit the service tax as demanded in the Showcause Notice dated 26.02.2010 and 08.04.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant failed to deposit the amount. No illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The order in original is also not challenged in the present appeal. 5. It appears that the final order in appeal has been passed by the Tribunal after the filing of the present appeal. The present appeal was filed against the order passed by the Tribunal directing the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the following order : ORDER (a) The appellant shall deposit the amount as directed by the CESTAT under order dated 21.11.2014 within a period of six weeks from today. (b) On the deposit of the amount as directed above, the order dismissing the appeal shall stand quashed and set aside and the appeal shall be restored to its original position. (c) It is made clear that deposit of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
