2013 (9) TMI 432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion and non-compliance with the directions of pre-deposit of dues made on 14.11.2011. The Ld. Chartered Accountant submitted that they have not received the notice of hearing and hence could not remain present on the date of hearing on 27.02.2012. The Ld. Chartered Accountant has submitted that this Miscellaneous Application was earlier heard by this Bench on 04.10.2012, directing to file an affidavit indicating payment to DOT and on other facts, accordingly, the applicant had filed affidavit on 30.04.2013. The Ld. Chartered Accountant further submitted that in the meantime on the basis of a Circular dated 01.01.2013, the department had initiated recovery proceedings against them. The applicant challenging the said proceeding had filed Wri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....non-appearance on behalf of the applicant. It is the submission of the Ld. Chartered Accountant that the notice of hearing was not received by them hence they could not remain present to make submission before this Tribunal that the total demand is erroneous and also major portion of the demand has already been paid by them. We find that the Hon'ble High Court at Ranchi has directed this Tribunal to dispose their Miscellaneous Application seeking restoration of their Appeal dismissed earlier. The Hon'ble High Court's has observed as follows:-    4. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, we are disposing of these writ petitions with directions to the CESTAT to decide the restoration application of the wri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of dues adjudged we take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides. We find that the issue of payment to DOT by the applicant had been raised at various levels and before the Commissioners time and again. Initially the payment of DOT has not been accepted by the department as discharge of their Service Tax liability since the amount has not been paid to the Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, after the Appellant separated from DOT. However, from the orders submitted by the Ld. Chartered Accountant, we find that the Commissionerates at Jamshedpur and Ranchi have accepted the payment made to DOT as discharge of their Service Tax liability. Also, we find in similar cir....