9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. 1. The above appeal has come up for hearing today on the defects noted by the Registry. The main defect noted by the Registry is that the appellant has not complied with mandatory pre-deposit as required under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Today, when the matter came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0309/2018 to support her contentions. 2. Ld. Departmental Representative Shri C. Mallikharjun Reddy argued the matter. 3. After hearing the submissions of both sides as well as perusal of records, it is seen that in the appellant's own case vide Miscellaneous Order No. M/30067-30068/2019 (cited supra), the Tribunal had followed the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Prades ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en credit to, the petitioner will not be liable to make any pre-deposit amount in the appeal. Mr. B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has, however, disputed the same. 2. In our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be heard by respondent No.3 on the above mentioned aspects for as per its plea HUL Limited has already discharged its liability towards GTA service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of this Bench, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has complied with the mandatory requirement of pre deposit, taking into consideration that the service tax has been paid by M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited under GTA services on Reverse Charge basis. 5. The other two defects noted by Registry such as requirement of Board Resolution, Undertaking is rectified. 6. The defects not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
