Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Limited vs Cst, Delhi on 15 June, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. 1 Date of hearing/decision: 15.06.2015 For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 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. 51343 of 2014 with Service Tax Stay No. 51583 of 2014 (Arising out of order in appeal No. 232/S. Tax DLH/2013 dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Delhi-I). M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co. Limited Appellant Vs. CST, Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Sh. B. B. Sharma, DR for the Respondent Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 51925/ 2015 Per: Justice G. Raghuram:
The primary adjudication order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi confirmed service tax demand of Rs.27,96,939/- apart from interest and penalties. Appellant preferred an appeal. Vide interim order No. 09/2013 dated 08.08.2013, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) directed pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- as a condition for waiver of pre-deposit. By the impugned order dated 18.11.2013, the ld. appellate Commissioner dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the interim order dated 08.08.2013 since no report of compliance was submitted by the appellant.
2. It is pleaded and stated before us that the appellant had remitted Rs.5 lakhs on 31.08.201`3 by way of challan drawn in favour of Revenue and thus there was compliance with the pre-deposit ordered by the ld. Commissioner. Photocopy of an e-receipt issued by the State Bank of India is enclosed with the appeal.
3. In the above circumstances there is seen to be compliance with the order of pre-deposit dated 08.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant was however negligent in failing to report compliance. Since there however is compliance with the pre-deposit order, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for determination of the appeal, on merits. This appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) Pant