2016 (6) TMI 312 - HC - Central Excise

Court rejects petition challenging tax order, emphasizes compliance with deposit requirements

M/s D.D. Singh Contractor Versus The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax And 3 Others

The court dismissed the petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. The petitioner's reliance ... Stay petition - Recovery of balance amount - Petitioner contended that during the pendency of the appeal when the petitioner has deposited 7.5% subject to a limit of ₹ 10 crores, no coercive measures should be taken against it - Held that:- there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has satisfied the jurisdictional authority about the aforesaid two conditions mentioned in Clause 4.2. It is for the petitioner to satisfy the jurisdictional authority regarding deposit of 7.5% of the tax demanded and the fact that an appeal has been filed. - Petition disposed of Issues:1. Validity of order passed by Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax.2. Applicability of circular dated 16 September 2014 during pendency of appeal.3. Requirement of satisfying jurisdictional authority regarding deposit and appeal filing.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, which was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax. The petitioner relied on a circular dated 16 September 2014, arguing that no coercive measures should be taken during the appeal if a certain deposit was made. However, the court noted that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner had satisfied the jurisdictional authority about the required conditions mentioned in the circular.2. The circular in question stated that no coercive measures for recovery should be taken during the appeal if the party/assessee provides proof of payment of a stipulated amount as a pre-deposit and a copy of the appeal memo. While the petitioner claimed to have submitted an application with relevant documents to the jurisdictional authority, the court emphasized the need for the petitioner to ensure proper satisfaction of the authority regarding the deposit and appeal filing.3. The court highlighted that it is the petitioner's responsibility to demonstrate to the jurisdictional authority the deposit of the required percentage of tax demanded and the filing of an appeal. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition, with a directive for the petitioner to provide necessary documentation to the authority promptly for a decision to be made within a specified timeframe. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and ensuring proper communication with the relevant authorities in matters of tax appeals and deposits.