Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Gurmehar Construction vs Cce, Raipur on 21 February, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
DIVISION BENCH
Court No.2
Appeal No.ST/601/2008
Date of Hearing/decision: 21.02.2013
Gurmehar Construction Appellant
Vs
CCE, Raipur Respondent
Present for the Appellant: None Present for the Respondent: Shri N.Pathak, DR Coram: Honble Mr.D.N.Panda, Judicial Member Honble Mr.Manmohan Singh, Technical Member ORDER NO.IO/ST/107/13 PER: D.N.PANDA None present for the appellant nor is there any adjournment application. It was voluntary submission of the appellant that an interim measure of pre-deposit of Rs.5 lakh may be ordered so that appeal can be disposed of expeditiously. Bench accepted the offer and passed stay order to make pre-deposit of Rs.5 lakhs within stipulated time. Matter was directed to be listed on 07.07.2009. When the matter came up on 26.07.2011 it was stated in the bar that certain matters are before Honble Delhi High Court on the issue of free supply of material by contractor as to whether shall from part of assessable value. It was also highlighted that Revenue succeeded before Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal on the same issue in the case of Jai Hind Projects vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-2011(23) STR J-130 (SC) for which appeal against the order of the Tribunal has been sought by assessee and that is pending before Apex Court. The matter was, therefore, directed to be listed in the last week of October, 2011. Accordingly adjourned to 27.10.2011. Thereafter although the matter is coming up from 13.12.2011, the appellant has not cause presence to inform status of the matter before aforesaid courts.
2. It appears that appellant is taking undue advantage of stay order passed on 13.05.2009 and not causing appearance to inform status of the matters before Apex Court and before High Court. Such an abuse of process of law is only to avail interim relief without co-operating for final disposal of appeal. This has caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue. Therefore, to protect interest of Revenue, it would be proper to vacate the stay order passed on 31.5.2009 which is already more that 3 years old, so that Revenue can recover its entire due in accordance with law. We order accordingly.
3. Notice is hereby issued to the appellant to show cause on 11.04.2013 as to the reason why its appeal shall not be dismissed for the abuse of process of law.
(Pronounced in the open court) (D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANMOHAN SINGH) TECHNICAL MEMBER mk 5 5