2015 (7) TMI 889

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irected the Applicants to deposit the balance amount of Service tax along with interest within a period of two weeks. Subsequently, Applicants sought time vide Misc.Order dated 10.07.2013 for weeks time was granted to comply with the conditions of the stay order. Today, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Appellant submitted that Appellant had made deposited the amount of service tax but unable to deposit the amount of interest. As the Appellant had not complied fully with the condition of the stay order. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for noncompliance to the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act However, Appellant shall have liberty to apply for restoration, in case the comp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The condition was that the stay order should be complied with within eight weeks from 18 September 2013. 4. It is reported that a such compliance could not be made and therefore, the Appeal stood dismissed without any adjudication on merits. 5. Mr. Shroff learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant invited our attention to the above provisions of the enactment to submit that there is no power in the Tribunal to dismiss an Appeal either for want of prosecution or for non-compliance with the conditional order. The appeal must be adjudicated on merits irrespective of such non-compliance is the statutory mandate. According to Mr.Shroff, learned senior counsel, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....visions and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Equally, we have also perused the common order delivered by us on 9th June 2015 in Central Excise Appeal No.57 (RAJESH H.ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA & ors) and 58 of 2014 (M/s RAVI RAJ PROCESSORS PVT.LTD vs.UNION OF INDIA & ors). We have also perused the order passed on 29th June, 2015 by us in Writ Petition No.1319 of 2015 (M/s SUPER LABEL MFG.CO VS THE UNION OF INDIA & anr) . We have also noted that during the pendency of the present Appeal, the Appellant's senior counsel submitted before the Court that the revenue has issued garnishee notices to the customers/clients of the appellants and have recovered certain amounts payable by the appellants. The recovery is effected directly ....