2010 (10) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing photographic services. Adjudging a show-cause notice issued to the appellant, the Joint Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Tirupathi Commissionerate confirmed demand of Service Tax of Rs. 4,66,189/- along with applicable interest. He appropriated an amount of Rs. 90,000/- paid by the appellant before adjudication. The amount confirmed was differential Service Tax found due from the appellant towards photographic services rendered by it during the period 16-7-2001 to 31-8-2004. The Joint Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,66,189/- on CCL under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act); Rs. 50,000/- under Section 76 of the Act and another penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. In the appeal before the Commission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esented. Vide Stay Order No. 56/2009 dated 21-1-2009, this Tribunal dismissed the stay application for non-prosecution. It was ordered that the appellants should report compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act by 22nd May, 2009. 2.1 Vide Misc. Order No. 503/2009, dated 11-9-2009, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by CCL for restoration of the stay application. At the time of hearing of the misc. application on 26-8-2009, the Counsel for the appellants had sought time for complying with the condition of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged vide the impugned order. The Tribunal granted time upto 30-9-2009 for depositing the dues. 2.2 There was no Division Bench sitting on 30-9-2009. The ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l was dismissed for default and for failure to comply with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. It is submitted that they were not represented on earlier occasions not on account of their negligence but due to their bona fide belief that they would be represented by their counsel. They were not informed of the requirement to make pre-deposit by a certain date by the counsel as ordered vide Stay Order No. 56/2009. 3.1 They cited judgments of the Apex Court in ACC Limited v. CC reported in 124 STC 59 (pages 74 & 75) and (2008) 10 APVR 233 and of the Tribunal in Shilpa Colour Lab v. CCE [2006 (4) S.T.R. 565)] in support of their case in the appeal on merits. Several other case-laws were also cited. 3.2 It is submitted that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 35F reads as follows :- "SECTION 35F : Deposit, pending appeal, of duty demanded or penalty levied. - Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of Central Excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied : Provided that where in any particular case, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as....