2024 (8) TMI 612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the parties. 2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner Shri Nitin Chopra, representing Swami Associates, has addressed us via Video Conferencing from Mumbai, yesterday and today. 3. There is no dispute that under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Petitioner has to file an appeal before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), at Mumbai. As a pre-condition for preferring the appeal, the aggrieved party has to deposit 7.5% of the duty amount which is assessed by the impugned order. The Petitioner has approached this Court, directly. 4. In the light of the facts which we would be considering in the paragraphs to follow and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... documents were enclosed, there was no request for presenting witnesses. There was no request for a personal physical hearing. There was no request for a virtual hearing. It is only on account of the lapse on the part of the department in not delivering an order within one year, that the department issued further notices for personal hearing. 8. Shri Chopra quickly responds to the above submissions of Shri Ladda by submitting that the department, after undergoing bifurcation, shifted to Nagpur. The business of the Petitioner is situated at Ahmednagar, which was amenable to the jurisdiction of the office of the Commissioner CGST and CX, Nagpur-I Commissionerate, CGST Bhavan at Nagpur. 9. The Petitioner concedes that the first intimation of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted position that an appeal has to be filed before the CESTAT within 90 days from the date of the communication of the order. The parties concede before us that the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay beyond 90 days. 11. In the light of the peculiar facts as recorded above, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by granting the Petitioner an opportunity to appear before the Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Nagpur-I, Commissionerate, for a re-hearing in the matter with relation to the show cause notice dated 21.04.2021. To balance the equities, we deem it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to deposit 5% of the amount which is assessed towards service tax by the impugned order dated 28.03.2....