Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs Cce & St, Bhopal on 11 April, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. IV DATE OF HEARING : 11/04/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 11/04/2016. Service Tax Stay Application No. 53014 of 2014 in Appeal No. 52587 of 2014 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. BPL-EXCUS-000-APP-171-172-13-14 dated 18/12/2013 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhopal.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 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 would be released under Rule 27 of : the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair : copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma Appellant Versus CCE & ST, Bhopal Respondent
Appearance Shri Sorabh Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K. Poddar, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 51238/2016 Dated : 11/04/2016 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
After hearing both the sides, we find that Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order passed on 22/11/2013 directing the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, within a period of six weeks.
2. The appellants grievance is that though the period of six weeks expired on or around 03/01/2014, the appeal itself was dismissed on 18/12/2013. Apart from that learned Advocate submits that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2014 (303) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) stands pronounced. In terms of the said decision, the liability under the works contract would arise only on or after 01/6/2007, in which case the appellants liability would come to around three lakhs. He makes an offer to deposit the said amount if some period is given to him.
3. No objection by the learned DR. In view of the above, we direct the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) within a period of eight weeks from today report compliance to Commissioner (Appeals), who would decide the appeal on merits, after ascertaining compliance with the above order. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed of in above manner.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
2