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>CESTAT Upheld Pre-Deposit Order: Mandatory for Appeal Consideration</h1> <h3>M/s. KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD Versus THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, KOCHI</h3> M/s. KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD Versus THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, KOCHI - TMI Issues:Challenge to order of CESTAT regarding pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The appellant, a Co-operative society, challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax imposing service tax and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the challenge due to non-compliance with Section 35-F of the Act. The appellant then approached the CESTAT, which directed a pre-deposit under Section 35-F before considering the appeal on merits. The appellant contended that the amendment to Section 35-F was not applicable retrospectively. However, the Act clearly mandates a pre-deposit to entertain any appeal.The High Court referred to a judgment by the High Court of Allahabad, which upheld the applicability of Section 35-F even if the show cause notice was issued before the amendment. The Court agreed with this view, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35-F. The Court noted that the CESTAT's order did not close the appellant's case but provided an opportunity to comply with the pre-deposit requirement. Consequently, the Court confirmed the CESTAT's order, granting the appellant three months to make the pre-deposit. If the deposit is made, the Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the appeal on merits within six months from the date of the judgment.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the CESTAT's order directing the pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of this requirement for entertaining appeals. The Court granted the appellant a limited period to comply with the pre-deposit condition, ensuring a subsequent decision on the appeal's merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).
TaxTMI 