2015 (1) TMI 347 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal allows appeal delay due to missing order proof, emphasizes consistency in decisions

GDC Creative Advertising Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad-iv

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE considered the delay in receipt of an order and non-compliance with the predeposit requirement in a case. The ... Dismissal of appeal - Non compliance of pre deposit order - Held that:- It is the submission of the appellant that the order itself was dispatched much later and as a result the appellant could not make the payment. Further he also submits that on the very same issue for a different period, the matter had come up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in [2015 (1) TMI 290 - CESTAT BANGALORE] had granted unconditional waiver of predeposit and stay against recovery. In view of the fact that in the case of the very same appellant for a different period on the very same issue, this Tribunal did not consider it is necessary to direct predeposit of any amount and granted the unconditional waiver of predeposit and stay, we consider that the Commissioner(Appeals) also can hear the appeal without insisting on predeposit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) with a request to deposit the appeal without insisting on any predeposit - Decided in favour of assesse. Issues: Delay in receipt of order, non-compliance with predeposit requirement, waiver of predepositIn the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the issue of delay in receipt of the order was considered. The appellants claimed they did not receive the impugned OIA dispatched on 25/03/2013 until they received a demand letter for service tax payment. The Tribunal, noting the absence of evidence of service of the OIA, condoned the delay in filing the appeal.Regarding the non-compliance with the predeposit requirement, the Commissioner(Appeals) had directed the appellant to deposit the tax amount by 12/12/2012, which led to the dismissal of the appeal. However, the Tribunal observed that for a similar issue involving the same appellant for a different period, unconditional waiver of predeposit and stay against recovery were granted by the Tribunal in a previous order. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner(Appeals) with a directive to hear the appeal without insisting on any predeposit.The judgment highlighted the importance of consistency in decisions, referencing the previous order where the Tribunal had granted unconditional waiver of predeposit for the same appellant on a similar issue. By emphasizing this precedent, the Tribunal aimed to ensure fairness and uniformity in the treatment of appeals. The decision also underscored the discretion available to the Commissioner(Appeals) in hearing appeals without mandating predeposit, especially in cases where the Tribunal had previously granted such waivers. The Tribunal's approach sought to balance procedural requirements with considerations of equity and consistency in the adjudication of tax matters.