2015 (10) TMI 363 - HC - Service Tax

Court allows appeal against pre-deposit order, directs Tribunal to hear on merits without additional deposit

The Court allowed the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the pre-deposit order by the Tribunal. The Court directed the ... Waiver of Pre-deposit - Goods Transport Agency services falling under Section 65(105)(ZZP) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Dispute arises with regards to the quantum of pre-deposit - Appellant held pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal was unfair and excessive, still deposited the same - Revenue held the amount as directed by the Tribunal was reasonable and justified – Held That:- Ends of justice would be met if the Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting for any further deposit – Stay granted. Issues:1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against pre-deposit order by the Tribunal.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in providing services as a Goods Transport Agency, filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 6 lacs along with interest. The Tribunal's order was based on an investigation initiated against the appellant by the respondent, which led to a demand of Rs. 38,08,083/- confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Subsequent appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal resulted in varied confirmations and modifications of the demands and penalties imposed. The primary issue in this appeal was the quantum of pre-deposit required by the Tribunal for hearing the appeal on merits.The appellant contended that the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 6 lacs with interest directed by the Tribunal was unfair and excessive. However, the appellant had already deposited the said amount as per a court order. On the other hand, the revenue's counsel argued that the amount directed by the Tribunal was reasonable and justified. After considering the submissions from both parties and the fact that the appellant had already made the required deposit, the Court found that justice would be served by directing the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on any further deposit.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the appeal by ordering the Tribunal to hear the case on its merits without requiring any additional deposit from the appellant.