Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Lodunlod Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 5 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Stay Petition No.ST/S/75183/16
In Appeal No.ST-75336/16
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.14-17/S.Tax/Commr/2016 dated 15.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi-I.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
HONBLE SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
M/s.Lodunlod Enterprises
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri N.K.Lal, C.A. for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) HONBLE SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing :- 05.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement :- 05.08.2016 ORDER NO.SO/75520/2016, FO/A/75757/2016 Per Shri H.K.Thakur.
These Stay Application and Appeal have been filed by the Appellant with respect to Order-in-Original No.14-17/S.Tax/Commr/2016 dated 15.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi-I.
2. Shri N.K.Lal (C.A.) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the Stay Petition has been filed by the Appellant on the ground that show cause notice was issued prior to amendment of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax law. Therefore, mandatory pre-deposit is not required to be made. He relied upon Kerala High Courts orders in the cases of Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, C & ST, Cochin 2015-(SR1)-GJX-0115-KER and Muthoot Finance Ltd. vs. UOI 2015-(SR1)-GJX-0098-KER.
3. Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the following case laws and argued that mandatory pre-deposit is required to be made :-
(i) Anjani Technoplast Ltd.v.CC [2015(326)ELT 472(Del.)]
(ii) Suvidha Signs Studios Pvt.Ltd.v.UOI [2016(336)ELT 274(Del.)]
(iii) Naba Metal (P) Ltd. & Another v. CCE, C & ST, BBSR [Order No.SO/75464-74465, FO/A/75705-75706/16 dt.02.08.2016]
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records.
5. It is observed from Delhi High Courts order in the case of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. CC (supra) and Suvidha Signs Studios Pvt.Ltd. v. UOI (supra) that mandatory deposit under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is required to be made and there is no discretion with CESTAT to waive any mandatory deposit with respect to Appeals filed after the date of amendment of Section 35F asking for mandatory deposit.
6. In view of the above observations Stay Application filed by the Appellant is dismissed and accordingly Appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed for non-compliance of mandatory deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax matters.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(P.K.CHOUDHARY) (H.K.THAKUR)
MEMBER(JUDICIAL) MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
sm
3
Appeal No.ST-75336/16