Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 33]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 13 May, 2014

        

 

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE


Final Order No.    20741 / 2014    

Application(s) Involved:

ST/Stay/21281/2014    in    ST/21161/2014-DB

Appeal(s) Involved:

ST/21161/2014-DB 



[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.13/2014(V-I) ST dated 07/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , VISAKHAPATNAM. ]

M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports
3-A, Lakshmi Enclave, Opp.  NBM Law College, Maharanipeta
VISAKHAPATNAM - 530002
AP 
Appellant(s)




Versus


Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam-I 
CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING
PORT AREA,
VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035
ANDHRA PRADESH
Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. N.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate Flat No.404, Ramaplaza, Rajendra Nagar, Visakhapatnam - 530 016.
For the Appellant (s)

Mr. A. K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner (AR)                               For the Respondent (s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date of Hearing: 13/05/2014
Date of Decision: 13/05/2014


Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY 

      
The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order requiring the appellants to deposit 25% of duty demanded within three weeks. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants did not get sufficient opportunity to argue their case and did not get sufficient time to make the deposit and the appellant was having financial difficulties. We find that appellant did not participate in the hearing of the appeal before the Commissioner at the time of consideration of stay application and also failed to deposit the amount. Since the demand is only 25% of the entire demand for service tax and in our opinion, the Commissioners order cannot be found fault with and appellant has not made out a prima facie case before us also. Under these circumstances, we consider that appellant should be given another opportunity to deposit the amount in the interest of justice. Accordingly the appellant is directed to deposit 25% of the tax demanded as per the stay order passed by the learned Commissioner and report compliance before him within eight weeks from today. After taking note of compliance with the above requirement, we request the Commissioner to consider the appeal on merits and pass an order after observing principles of natural justice. In the result, the stay application as well as the appeal gets disposed of.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2