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>Writ Petition Allowed: Addressing Pre-Deposit Issues in Appeal</h1> <h3>M/s. Chennai Citi Centre Holdings (P) Limited Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals – I), The Additional Commissioner of Service Tax Service Tax II Commissionerate</h3> M/s. Chennai Citi Centre Holdings (P) Limited Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals – I), The Additional Commissioner of Service Tax Service Tax ... Issues:1. Challenge to communication for further pre-deposit in appeal2. Compliance with pre-deposit requirements under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 19443. Excess payments made by the petitioner4. Delay in filing the appeal5. Adjustment of excess amounts against pre-deposit requirements6. Liberty granted to file applications for condonation of delay or explanationsIssue 1: Challenge to communication for further pre-deposit in appealThe petitioner filed a writ petition to quash a communication dated 3.5.2017 requiring a further pre-deposit of 7.5% of the impugned service tax/penalty for the appeal to be entertained. The petitioner claimed to have deposited amounts in excess of 7.5% and questioned the justification of the communication.Issue 2: Compliance with pre-deposit requirements under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944A report filed by the Superintendent (Legal) indicated that the petitioner had complied with the pre-deposit requirements for some orders but had a deficit of Rs. 1,57,574 in one specific order. The respondent stated that if the deficit amount was paid, all appeals would be numbered and taken up for final hearing.Issue 3: Excess payments made by the petitionerThe petitioner had made excess payments in appeals against certain orders, amounting to Rs. 74,825 and Rs. 85,479. This excess amount was proposed to be adjusted against the pre-deposit requirement in the appeal against a specific order.Issue 4: Delay in filing the appealThe communication highlighted a delay of one day in filing the appeal, for which no explanation was provided by the petitioner. The petitioner was given liberty to file applications for condoning the delay or provide an explanation for the delay.Issue 5: Adjustment of excess amounts against pre-deposit requirementsThe excess payment made by the petitioner in certain appeals was proposed to be adjusted against the deficit in the pre-deposit for a specific order, resulting in an excess payment of Rs. 1,60,304 by the petitioner.Issue 6: Liberty granted to file applications for condonation of delay or explanationsThe petitioner was granted four weeks to file applications or representations regarding the delay in filing the appeal and the excess payments made. The office of the respondent was directed to consider these applications and determine if there was still a deficit in the pre-deposit amount, with instructions for further action accordingly.In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed with observations, granting liberty to the petitioner to address the issues raised and ensuring the appeals would be numbered and disposed of within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
