2015 (3) TMI 1140 - HC - Service Tax

High Court modifies tribunal order on deposit amounts, stresses prompt compliance

Sesa Sterlite Ltd. (formerly known as Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.,) Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise And The Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

The High Court modified the Customs Exercise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 3 crores by 31.03.2015 and ... Waiver of pre-deposit - tribunal directed to deposit ₹ 4 crores in three installments - learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein has two units. One is at Tuticorin and another is at Silvasa. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Tribunal directed to pay the amount, which is not according to law. - Held that:- Accordingly, the appellant herein shall deposit the first and second installments together, which comes to ₹ 3 crores (Rupees three crores only), on or before 31.03.2015 and the last installment of ₹ 1 crore (Rupees one crore only), as decided by the second respondent Tribunal, on or before 15.04.2015, without prejudice to the claim of both the parties to this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Issues:Challenge to order of Customs Exercise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deposit amount for stay order.Analysis:The judgment involves a challenge to an order made by the Customs Exercise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The appellant was directed to deposit a total of Rs. 4 crores in three instalments as a condition for granting a stay order. The first instalment of Rs. 2 crores was to be deposited by 28.02.2015, the second instalment of Rs. 1 crore by 31.03.2015, and the last instalment of Rs. 1 crore by 15.04.2015. Failure to deposit any instalment would result in the stay order being vacated, allowing the respondents to recover the dues as per the law. The appellant, through their Senior Counsel, argued that the Tribunal's directive was not in accordance with the law, citing the existence of two units owned by the appellant in Tuticorin and Silvasa.The standing counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal's order was justified under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This section mandates the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied pending an appeal, with provisions for exceptions in cases of undue hardship. The judges considered the arguments from both sides and issued a modified order. The appellant was directed to deposit the first and second instalments together, totaling Rs. 3 crores by 31.03.2015, and the final instalment of Rs. 1 crore by 15.04.2015, in line with the Tribunal's decision. This directive was given without prejudice to the claims of either party in the appeal.Furthermore, the judges emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the matter by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, as requested by the appellant's Senior Counsel. Ultimately, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, arguments presented by both parties, and the modified order issued by the High Court in response to the challenge against the Tribunal's order.