TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 74,16,923/- towards Service Tax, along with interest and penalties. This order was subjected to appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter, 'the Appellate Tribunal'), by the appellant company in ST Appeal No. 1745 of 2010. Stay Application No. 1026 of 2010 was filed therein by the appellant company seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further proceedings pursuant to the Order-in-Original dated 30-3-2010. 2. By order dated 10-7-2013 [294 (36) S.T.R. 353 (Tri.-Bang.)], the Appellate Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Order-in-Original, subject to the condition that the appellant company remitted 50% of the assessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was. However, waiver of the interest component was subject to the condition that the appellant company executed a bond covering 50% of the said interest component within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This bond was to be executed by the appellant company in favour of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-II, binding itself to pay the said interest amount. 4. Admittedly, the appellant company failed to abide by the conditional order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, insofar as it was retained, and the conditional order passed by this Court, within time. 5. While so, Stay Application No. 1026 of 2010 in ST Appeal No. 1745 of 2010 came up for hearing before the Appellate Tribunal on 7-4-2014 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant company did not comply even with the directions of the High Court within the period specified. The appellant company then reported that it had complied with the directions of the High Court beyond the time specified. The Appellate Tribunal thereupon opined that as the time stipulation was fixed by the High Court for making the deposit, it would be inappropriate for it to restore the appeal which was already dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order. The Appellate Tribunal further observed that if any modification was to be made in the directions of the High Court, it could only be done by the High Court. The Appellate Tribunal accordingly refused to restore the appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the aforestated Final Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on 5-2-2018. 9. It is an admitted fact that the appellant company paid Rs. 37,08,462/- towards 50% of the Service Tax component only on 9-4-2014, i.e., two days after the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal for non-compliance. The bond required to be furnished in terms of the order dated 5-12-2013 passed in CEA No. 39 of 2013 was submitted only on 10-6-2014. 10. The aforestated undisputed facts clearly demonstrate that the appellant company was utterly negligent in complying with the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, by this Court, notwithstanding the specific time stipulations mentioned therein. Further, the appellant company was well aware that the Appellate Tribunal had made it clear tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r carelessness on the part of a litigant cannot be countenanced. 11. Though it is alleged before us that the appellant company has a good case on merits, we are of the opinion that having failed to safeguard its own interest by complying with the conditional stay orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, by this Court, the appellant company cannot seek further indulgence. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the appellant company did not at least deposit 50% of the Service Tax component immediately after receiving the order dated 5-12-2013. The sheer negligence and carelessness on the part of the appellant company all through demonstrate that it had no intention of taking timely steps to safeguard its own intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|