Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs Cce Nagpur on 21 November, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. ST/S/1501/10
IN APPEAL NO. ST/368/10 Mum
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SR/137/NGP/2010 dated 26.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur.
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
M/s. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Nagpur
Respondent
Appearance Shri Ashish Philips, Advocate for appellant Shri Sanjay Kalra, Appraiser (A.R.) For Respondent CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 21.11.2011 Date of Decision : 21.11.2011 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal along with a stay application on the ground that their appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of stay order passed by the Commissioner.
2. Heard.
3. After hearing both sides we find that the issue involved is in a narrow compass. Therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed on the appellant, we have taken up the appeal itself for final disposal.
4. We have observed in the impugned order that the Commissioner has directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the entire amount of service tax along with the interest. While the appellant has deposited the service tax, but failed to pay the interest. In the circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that the appellant has made the pre-deposit of the amount of Rs. 33,74,831/-from their CENVAT Account but has not paid interest. As the appellant has failed to comply with the condition of the stay order dated 25.03.2010, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance. We consider that the amount of service tax paid by the appellant is sufficient to comply with the Section 35F of CEA, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Now the appellant has paid the interest also. Therefore, they have complied with the stay order passed by the Commissioner.
5. In view of the above observation, we remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an order on merit without insisting for further deposits. Appeal as well as stay application are disposed of in the above term. (Pronounced in open Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3