TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Order dated 11.11.2013 by the Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated that the appellant is an Indo-French Cultural Centre, which specialises in French Language Teaching Organisation and Curating Cultural Events. Show cause notices dated 20.10.2009 and 20.10.2010 were issued alleging non-payment of service tax under the 4 categories viz. (i) Commercial Trading or Coaching Services, (ii) Club or Association Services, (iii) Business Support Services and (iv) Renting immovable property services. On adjudication, the demand of service tax was confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 15.10.2012. While challenging the said order-in-original, the appellant filed a stay application seeking waiver from the payment of pre-deposit amount in terms of Section 35....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant has argued that the amount deposited by them in terms of the Interim Order passed by the Tribunal was for the purpose of availing the remedy of statutory appeal in terms of Section 35F of the Act. She emphasised that the Tribunal granted the stay on the condition that the appellant pre-deposits the amount of Rs.9,66,000/- along with interest and hence, the same has to be treated as a pre-deposit. Referring to line of decisions, she submitted that the amount deposited by the appellant cannot be categorised as duty and, therefore, would not be governed by the provisions of Section 11B prescribing the time limit. In support of her submission, the learned counsel has referred to the various Circulars issued by the Department clarifyi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In default of deposit, the appeal shall stand rejected. Counsel is present in the court, has noted this order and this constitutes sufficient intimation to the petitioner of its obligation under this order. Stay application is accordingly disposed of." As can be seen, the Tribunal has granted waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the proceedings in terms of the impugned order, subject to the condition that the appellant shall remit the requisite amount along with interest within a period of 6 weeks. The order passed is simple and clear that the appellant was required to make the pre-deposit for consideration or appeal and also to avail the benefit of the Stay Order as otherwise, they would have suffered the dismissal of appeal. The amount in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled before the Commissioner (Appeals) for dispensing with the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied under the first proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section "duty demanded" shall include ,- (i) amount determined under section 11D; (ii) amount of erroneous CENVAT credit taken; (iii) amount payable under rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944; (iv) amount payable under rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 or CENVAT Credit Rules,2002 or CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (v) interest payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no longer res integra, having been decided in series of decisions. We would refer to the latest decision passed by this Tribunal in Chambal Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Udaipur18 where the Bench had dealt with similar contentions as raised by the appellant herein referring to the earlier decisions of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs. Pricol Ltd which was subsequently followed by the Allahabad High Court in Ebiz.com vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax and ors. and subsequently in Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Vs. Eveready India Ltd. In all these decisions, the main principle laid down is that any amount deposited during....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive Engineer (Workshop) M. P. Power Transmission Co. Ltd., vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Customs & CGST [Final order No. 50066 dated 17.01.2025] till the date of its refund. In similar circumstances where refund was directed to be paid to the assessee, we had also granted interest @ 12% per annum. The relevant para is quoted below:- "19. Since we have held that the appellant is entitled to refund claim, we are also inclined to direct that the refund shall be paid along with interest. The Apex Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax -I,Pune [2006 (196) ELT 257 (SC)] with reference to the provisions of the Income Tax Act has observed that in view of the express provisions of the Act the assessee is e....