9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of India challenging the impugned order dated 8th November, 2024, by which the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter 'CESTAT') has returned the appeal due to non-compliance of the pre-deposit condition mandated under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Admittedly, the pre-deposit was made by the Petitioner way back on 13th August, 2018 and 17th August, 2018 itself for a sum of Rs. 1,60,600/- and Rs. 4,750/- respectively. The Petitioner has also submitted the challans showing the deposit. The ground taken in the impugned order is that the same was deposited in a wrong account and therefore credit cannot be given of the pre-deposit and hence the appeal does not deserve consideration on merits. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent No. 3, petitioners could not have made the deposit in the manner they made and, therefore, should be construed to have not complied with the precondition of pre-deposit. Strangely in the order respondent No. 3 does not state how the deposit should have been made. According to petitioner, even during the personal hearing respondent No. 3 was totally silent and never brought to the notice of petitioner as to how the deposit should have been made. ********** ************* ************* 7. Therefore, it does appear that the confusion seems to be due to there being no proper legal provision to accept payment of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 through DRC-03. Some appellants are filing appeals afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial justice and the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in shirking from its responsibility of deciding the appeal on merits. CBIC has issued another Circular/Instruction dated 18.04.2023, by which it has clarified the earlier Instruction dated 28.10.2022. It has been provided that DRC-03 is a prescribed mode for payment of pre-deposit under the GST Act. From perusal of paragraph 3 of the Instruction dated 28.10.22, it is evident that the tax under the existing law (Service Tax) shall be recovered as an arrear of tax under the CGST Act and the pre-deposit is neither in the nature of duty nor can be treated as arrears under the Service Tax law. Thus, when the service tax could be recovered as an arrear of Service Tax under CGST Act, after comme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt official from the Respondent-Department be present on the next date of hearing with the instructions. 9. In the meanwhile, no coercive step shall be taken against the Petitioner." 8. Further to the previous order, the Counter Affidavit was filed by the Department, wherein it is accepted as under : "14. That the new payment system, which started in July 2019, was not available before that. Therefore, the system for making pre-deposits through the CBIC-GST Integrated portal did not exist in 2018, when the petitioner made the 7.5% pre-deposit for the first appeal. The taxpayer followed the process allowed at that time, which was accepted by the Appellate Authority during the first appeal. 15. That the appellant initially deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
