TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isc. Application No. 56359 of 2013 in Service Tax Appeal No. 3998 of 2012. The short controversy involved in this appeal is with regard to the condition of pre-deposit for hearing the appeal by the Tribunal and rejection of appeal for non-compliance of order for pre-deposit. Undisputed facts are that service tax has been levied upon the appellant and being aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority along with an application for waiver of the amount of tax levied. On the date, when the application for interim relief for waiver was fixed, nobody responded on behalf of the appellant and as such, the Tribunal proceeded and after perusal of the record and hearing the departmental representative, rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cum waiver application? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact that the stay cum waiver application was listed for hearing for the first time on 01.01.2013 and the counsel could not appear as his train was late by six hours which was beyond his control and the fact was conveyed to the Hon'ble Bench during the course of hearing of the Misc. Application for modification of the order dated 01.01.2013?" It has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the appellant that the application for modification of the order has to be heard by the same Bench in view of the provisions of Rule 31A Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which on reproduction reads as under:- "Rules 31A. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it Rs.39 lacs within four weeks and stayed the realization of balance amount. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application dated 12.2.2013 for modification of the stay order dated 1.1.2013. This application was considered by the Bench presided over by the President of the Tribunal. While rejecting the application vide order dated 10.6.2013, the Tribunal observed that the modification application is in the nature of an application seeking review of the order dated 1.1.2013 and directed to comply with the order dated 1.1.2013 by depositing Rs.39 lacs within seven days, else the appeal would be dismissed, without further reference to the Tribunal. Thereafter, the appeal came up for orders on 25.6.2013 and the same was rejected in terms of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehalf of the appellant. The appellant has stated that non-presence before the Tribunal was for the reason that the train reached late to New Delhi. It is also true that the appeal has been rejected in terms of the order dated 10.6.2013 whereby the application for modification was rejected. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that Section 35-F is not a condition precedent for filing an appeal, but it is certainly a condition precedent for hearing the appeal on merits. Statutory right of appeal subject to condition of deposit shall be treated as a valuable right of the assessee and the Tribunal should not be very harsh on the appellant while exercising the discretionary powers under Section 35-F. We find force in the submissions adva....