Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Indu Eastern Province Projects Private ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 27 February, 2020
ITEM NO.33 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XVII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE
Civil Appeal No(s). 5448-5449/2019
INDU EASTERN PROVINCE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD IV
Respondent(s)
Date : 27-02-2020 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Adv.
Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Gaur, Adv.
Mr. Sorabh Dahiya, Adv.
Mr. Vibhu Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Nipun Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anmol Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar-i, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Manish, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Vide order dated 12.12.2019, four weeks’ time was granted to the sole respondent for filing counter affidavit, however, counter affidavit has not been filed till today. Ld. Counsel for the respondent seeks four weeks’ more time to file counter affidavit. Granted, as last opportunity.
Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the issue
involved in the matter is purely of interpretation of the
provisions
Signature Not Verified
as to whether service tax is applicable on
Digitally signed by
Anil Laxman Pansare
Date: 2020.02.29
the
14:29:02 IST
Reason: activity of the appellant herein. The court fee of
Rs.10,000/- is already paid, however, no fees as per amended rules is payable by the appellant. When asked, Ld. counsel for Item No.33 -2- the appellant submits that he does not have copy of affidavit of valuation with him for perusal of the Court.
Perused office report. It is mentioned in the office report that Ld. counsel for the appellant has on 22.2.2020 filed affidavit of valuation stating that this is a matter of intrepretation of the provisions and no Ad-valorem court fee is payable in this matter.
Since copy of affidavit of valuation was not available with Ld. counsel for the appellant and since office report did not accompany the copy of affidavit, I thought it proper to verify from the record, the contents of the affidavit of valuation to find out whether court fee is payable by the appellant. Having gone through the affidavit of valuation dated 21.6.2019 and record of case, it appears that the appellant has already filed affidavit of valuation mentioning therein that the amount of tax of Rs.1,84,54,252/- alongwith denial of CENVAT credit of Rs.2,11,97,776/- is involved in the matter. It is mentioned that the court fee of Rs.10,000/- has been paid at the time of filing the matter. It is thus evident that earlier the appellant has shown valuation of subject matter in dispute to be Rs.1,84,54,252/- alongwith denial of CENVAT credit of Rs.2,11,97,776/-.
It appears that he has again filed affidavit of valuation on 22.2.2020 mentioning therein that the matter relates to interpretation of the provision and therefore no court fees is payable. The appellant has now sought permission to withdraw the affidavit of valuation filed earlier.
Item No.33 -3-
To my mind, the appellant has not made out any case for withdrawal of the affidavit of valuation filed earlier. The subject matter of the petition is (Rs.1,84,54,252/- +Rs.2,11,97,776/-)=Rs.3,96,52,028/-. As such, affidavit of valuation ought to have been filed in terms of Order XIX Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 mentioning therein amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance and in the High Court, and the amount or value of subject-matter in dispute before the Court with particulars showing how the said valuation has been arrived at. However, he has straightaway mentioned in first affidavit that the valuation of subject-matter is Rs.3,96,52,028/-. The said affidavit does not in tune with Order XIX Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Nonetheless he has valued the subject-matter to Rs.3,96,52,028/-. He is accordingly directed to pay court fee on the aforesaid valuation within two weeks from today.
With the above directions, permission sought to withdraw earlier affidavit stands rejected.
List again on 30.3.2020.
ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE Registrar