TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16/2017 for a sum of ₹ 74,825/- and ₹ 85,479/-. Thus, there is excess payment of ₹ 1,60,304/- by the petitioner which amount can be allowed to be adjusted against the amount of pre-deposit in the petitioner's appeal against Order in Original No.14/2017 dated 10.2.2017 - The impugned communication dated 03.05.2017 also states that the appeal has been filed with a delay of one day. However, there is no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner on the same. The petitioner is given liberty to file appropriate applications for condoning the delay or in the alternative, give their explanation as to why there was no delay in filing the appeals and how the amounts paid by the petitioner in appeal against the Order in O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 10.02.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I) on 25.4.2017. 3. By the impugned communication dated 3.5.2017 bearing reference C.No.IV/2/10/2016 (STA) signed by the Superintendent of Service Tax (Appeals-II) attached to the office of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has been informed that these appeals filed by the petitioner shall not be entertained by the 1st respondnent Commissioner (Appeals) unless the petitoner deposits 7.5% of the impugned service track/penalty and since the petitioner had failed to comply with the same the appeals filed by the petitioner were liable to be returned. It has been further pointed out that there is a delay of one day in filing the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunity is given to the petitioner, it will convince the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals I) regarding the payments made for the purpose of pre-deposit under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 8. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Office of the 1st respondent was directed to file a report regarding the amounts paid by the petitioner for the purpose of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act,1944. A report dated 28.10.2010 of the Superintendent (Legal) has been filed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Paragraph-8 of the said report is extracted hereunder: 8. Based on the details provided by the assessee and verification carried out, the total amounts pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1944 as made be applicable for appeals against order passed under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 insofar as Order in Original Nos.15/2017 and 16/2017 dated 10.02.2010 is concerned. Thus, the appeal should have been numbered. However, there is delay. According to the Superintendent (Legal), there is a deficit of ₹ 1,57,574/- insofar as pre-deposit appeal against Order in Original No.14/2017 dated 10.02.2010 and therefore the petitioner should be called upon to pay a balance amount. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that if the petitioner pay the aforesaid deficit amounts of ₹ 1,57,574/- the appeal against Order in Original No.14/2017 dated 10.2.2017 all the 3 appeals filed by the petitioner will be num ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t period. They have also failed to submit detailed workings for the period from April to June 2012 in order to substantiate their claim. Therefore, in absence of bifurcated details of due liability for April-June 2012-13, it is not possible to verify whether the said payment of ₹ 4,50,724/- was made for the past period or for the period April to June 2012. 14. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 15. Though there is appear to be a deficit in pre-deposit of amount in so as far as the Order in Original No.14/2017 is concerned as the report filed, it is noticed that the petitioner has paid amounts in excess in their appeal against the order in Original Nos.15 16/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2017 can be adjusted appeal against deficit pointed out in Order in Original No.14 of 2017- dated10.02.2017. 21. In case, the office of the 1st respondent still finds there was deficit in the pre-deposit amount by petitioner against its appeal against the Order in Original No.14 of 2017- dated 10.02.2017, the petitioner shall be informed about the same in writing consequent to which the petitioner shall deposit the deficit amount within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such communication from the office of the 1st respondent. 22. On such deposit, the appeals shall be numbered forthwith subject to formal order for condoning the delay if such application is required and dispose the appeals within a period of three mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
