Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S A.K. Jain & Associates vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 18 September, 2013
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. 1 Date of hearing/decision: 18.09.2013 For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Technical Member 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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 Departmental authorities? Service Tax Appeal No. 348 of 2012 (Arising out of order in original No. 55 56/2011 (ST) dated 03.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise-I, Jaipur). M/s A.K. Jain & Associates Appellants Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance: Ms. Rashi, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Govind Dixit & Sh. R. P. Puri, DRs for the Revenue Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Technical Member Final Order No. 57679/ 2013 Per: Justice G. Raghuram:
The stay application filed by the appellant was disposed of by the order dated 05.08.2013 granting waiver of pre-deposit of the adjudicated liability and of all further proceedings pursuant to the adjudication order, pending disposal of the appeal, on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.15,50,000/- plus the applicable interest on this amount, within four weeks. In default of deposit, the order stipulated, the appeal would stand dismissed.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Rashi states that against the order dated 05.08.2013 the petitioner has filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jodhpur but the writ petition has not yet been listed. It is however conceded by the ld. Counsel that the deposit has not been made within the time stipulated.
3. In the circumstances, the default condition has already come into operation and the appeal stands rejected in terms of the order dated 05.08.2013.
4. By the order dated 05.08.2013 waiver of pre-deposit and stay all further proceedings pursuant to the adjudication order was granted on condition that the petitioner remits Rs. 15,50,000/-. The order however contains a typographical error, in that, while the amount directed to be remitted is correctly reflected in figures, in its reproduction in words, the amount is erroneously stated as rupees fifteen lakhs fifteen thousand. This error is therefore corrected and amount directed to be deposited shall read in words as well, as Rs. 15,50,000/-. Registry shall issue a corrected copy of the order dated 05.08.2013 to the parties.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (Sahab Singh) Technical Member Pant