2015 (1) TMI 903

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nch, Kolkata, which the appellant claims to have received on 25 April, 2013. 2. The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the fabrication of steel in its factory at Durgapur, for which the appellant is registered with the Central Excise authorities since 1989 with Excise Registration No. AAAFE7976RXM001. 3. Apart from manufacturing activities, the appellant also carries on other activities such as management, maintenance, repair, erection, commission, installation, etc. on behalf of different customers, for which the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax in terms of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended from time-to-time. The appellant is registered with the Service Tax authorities, its Service Tax Registration number bein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,34,59.362 and imposing penalty of Rs. 100 per day, from the date immediately following the due date of payment of service tax, till 17th of April, 2006 and at Rs. 200 per day or @ 2% of the Service Tax amount per month, whichever was higher, with effect from 18th of April, 2006 and till date of payment of Service Tax. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal being Appeal No. ST 355/2010 under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata, along with an application No. SP - 854/2010 under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under SSI Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, as also the various other grounds taken in the appeal. 13. The learned Tribunal also observed that the contentions raised by the appellant involved appreciation of evidence, and could be considered at the time of regular hearing of the appeal. The learned Tribunal was not satisfied with the prima facie case made out by the appellant. 14. Under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a person desirous of preferring an appeal against any order relating to any duty demand or penalty is liable to deposit the duty demanded or the penalty imposed with the Adjudicating Authority. However, where the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of the duty demanded....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stainable in law, the requirement of pre-deposit may unconditionally be dispensed with. Where however, the prima facie case is not that strong, the interest of the revenue would necessarily have to he secured, and the appellant would have to be put to terms. 18. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has dispensed with deposit of 75% of the duty demanded and the penalty levied. The learned Tribunal was apparently, not satisfied with the prima facie case made out by the appellant. The order of the learned Tribunal, requiring the appellant to deposit 25% of the duty demanded does not, in our view, call for interference in appeal. 19. We are, however, of the view, that the learned Tribunal ought to have given the appellant a....