TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit order;</h1> <h3>M/s. United Cargo Transport Services Versus CCE, Chennai-II </h3> M/s. United Cargo Transport Services Versus CCE, Chennai-II - TMI Issues: Non-compliance with pre-deposit order, verification of payment, dismissal of appealsNon-compliance with Pre-deposit Order:The appellants were directed to pre-deposit an amount within a specified period, subject to verification by the service tax department. Despite extensions and multiple opportunities, the appellants failed to comply with the pre-deposit order. The appellants claimed to have already made a deposit, but the Service Tax Commissionerate clarified that the payments made were unrelated to the demanded amount. The Tribunal issued a notice for the appellants to show cause for non-compliance. Despite repeated chances and final notices, the appellants did not make the required payment, leading to the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the stay order.Verification of Payment:The appellants claimed to have already deposited a certain amount, which they believed should be considered as part of the pre-deposit. However, the Service Tax Commissionerate confirmed that no such deposit was made in relation to the demanded amount. The Tribunal found that the appellants had not paid any amount as ordered in cash, over and above the claimed deposit. The verification reports clearly stated that the payments made were for regular service tax payments from a different period and not towards the demanded amount, leading to a discrepancy in the claimed deposit.Dismissal of Appeals:The Tribunal rejected the appellants' miscellaneous application seeking modification or recall of the notice for non-compliance. Despite giving ample time and opportunities for the appellants to comply with the pre-deposit order, they continuously failed to do so. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' miscellaneous application lacked merit and dismissed both appeals for non-compliance with the stay order. The final decision to dismiss the appeals was based on the appellants' persistent failure to adhere to the pre-deposit requirements, despite clear directives and notices issued by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
