Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Heritage Property Development Co. ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai on 5 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/Misc./40289/2014 and ST/565/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 21/2011 dated 29.7.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member
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 authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Heritage Property Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 05.02.2014 Date of Decision: 05.02.2014 Final Order No.40065/2014 Per P.K. Das By Stay Order No. 42504 & 42505/2013 dated 22.10.2013, the applicant was directed to predeposit an amount of Rs.35 lakhs and to report compliance on 30.12.2013. The applicant filed a modification application for extension of time to comply with the stay order. By Miscellaneous Order No.42917/2013 dated 30.12.2013, the Tribunal extended the period of compliance by further four weeks and directed the applicant to report compliance today i.e. 5.2.2014. Today, the learned counsel submits that they have filed another application for extension of stay order. He fairly submits that they have not deposited any amount due to acute financial crunch.
2. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing on behalf of Revenue strongly opposes this application filed by the appellant.
3. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that earlier by Miscellaneous Order dated 30.12.2013, the Tribunal granted extension of time and the relevant portion is reproduced below:-
The relevant portion of the said application is reproduced below:
The current Tamil Month being Margazhi which is considered as most inauspicious for purchases and registration of immovable properties, the registration of sale deed for sale of land has been postponed to next Tamil month Thai which is considered as Most Auspicious. The registration process will be completed during the second week of Tamil Month Thai i.e. 29.1.2014
4. We find that the applicant had not deposited any amount and again they have filed an application for extension of time for compliance. We are not satisfied with the reason as stated by the applicant. In view of that the application filed by the applicant for extension of time is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Mathew John) (P.K. Das)
Technical Member Judicial Member
Rex