Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ivrcl Infrastructures And ... vs The Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 4 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE COURT - I Stay Application No.: ST/Stay/931 & 932/2012 in Service Tax Appeal No.: ST/1324 & 1325/2012 Date of Hearing and Decision: 04.06.2013 (Arising out of (i) Order-in-Appeal No. 7/2012 (H-II) (D) S. Tax dated 27.02.2012 & (ii) Order-in-Appeal No.9/2012 (H-II) S. Tax dated 31.1.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad.) M/s. IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Ltd. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Hyderabad. Respondent
Appearance Mr. G. Natarajan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R. K. Singla, Commissioner (AR) for the respondent.
CORAM HONBLE MR. D. N. PANDA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. ___________________ 2013 Order per: D. N. Panda Learned counsel says that the learned appellate authority below dismissed the appeal of the appellant for failure to make pre-deposit as ordered by him. It is also his submission that the appellant has fair chance of success if the ratio laid down in the following orders of the Tribunal is followed:
(a) Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (19) S.T.R. 259 (Tri.-Bang.)
(b) Dinesh Chandra Agarwal Infracon P. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2011 (21) S.T.R. 41 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
(c) L & T Ltd. vs. CCE: 2011 (22) S.T.R. 459 (Tri.-Ahd.) He also submits that Revenue was in appeal before learned appellate Commissioner (A) for enhancement of penalty. Appellant has come in appeal both against the principal issue of taxability as well as enhancement of penalty in present two appeals.
2. Learned JCDR at this stage says that the issues decided in the cited decisions relied upon by learned counsel are quite different from the controversy present appeals.
3. It is not warranted to examine merit of the appeal since the appellant has already lost his appeal on the maintainability. Therefore, considering the decisions of the Tribunal in the cited decisions, it would be proper for the learned Commissioner (A) to dispense with pre-deposit and hear the appeal without insisting the same, so that the appellant shall not be deprived of the process of justice.
4. Decision as above calls for remand of both the matters to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the matter on merit and the appellant shall have opportunity to argue the matters on the issues raised in the memorandum of appeal as well as citations relied upon by him as well as on the applicability of law.
5. In the result, both the stay applications are disposed of and the appeals remanded to learned Commissioner (Appeals). (Pronounced and dictated in open Court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) Member (Technical) (D. N. PANDA) Member (Judicial) rv 3