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>Appellant must deposit additional funds by 30.4.2014 to proceed with appeal hearing.</h1> <h3>M/s. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II</h3> The court ordered the appellant to deposit an additional Rs. 50 lakhs for the appeal hearing, extending the deadline to 30.4.2014. If the specified amount ... Quantum of pre-deposit - Whether the Tribunal is justified to direct deposit of 50% of tax along with interest when the Appellant has provided services of storage of foodgrain and not renting of immovable property - Held that:- After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, another sum of ₹ 50 lacs be deposited as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal which would meet the ends of justice - Time limit to make pre deposit extended - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against Tribunal's order2. Justification of directing deposit of 50% tax along with interest3. Prima facie case on merits and financial condition4. Irreparable loss due to order of deposit5. Perversity and contradiction in the impugned order6. Quantum of pre-deposit for hearing the appeal7. Extension of time for pre-depositAnalysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against the order of the Tribunal. The appellant questioned the justification of the Tribunal's direction to deposit 50% of the tax along with interest, arguing that they provided services of storage of foodgrain and not renting of immovable property. The appellant also raised concerns about the strong prima facie case on merits and financial condition, the irreparable loss due to the order of deposit, and the alleged perversity and contradiction in the impugned order.2. The facts of the case revealed that the assessee provided godowns to the Food Corporation of India for storage of agriculture produce. The audit found discrepancies, leading to show cause notices and subsequent confirmation of duty demand and penalty by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal then directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the adjudicated liability of service tax along with interest, prompting the present appeal.3. The appellant sought relief from the court, requesting to hear the appeal without further deposit, citing a previous deposit of Rs. 1 crore as per a court order. The revenue, however, opposed this request, arguing that the amount directed by the Tribunal was reasonable and justified.4. The primary dispute centered around the quantum of pre-deposit required for the appeal's hearing. After considering arguments from both sides and the overall circumstances, the court ordered an additional deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs as a condition for hearing the appeal, aiming to serve the interests of justice.5. The court disposed of the appeal accordingly, granting an extension for the pre-deposit deadline until 30.4.2014 in the interest of justice. It was directed that if the appellant deposited the specified amount by the given date, the appeal would proceed to be heard on its merits as per the Tribunal's previous order.This detailed analysis outlines the key issues raised in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the court's decision regarding the pre-deposit requirement and the subsequent hearing of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
