TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Restoration of case in CESTAT on the ground of non-compliance of the direction given by the CESTAT in previous order.
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estoration of case in CESTAT on the ground of non-compliance of the direction given by the CESTAT in previous order.<br> Query (Issue) Started By: - Sudhir Kumar Dated:- 27-8-2025 Last Reply Date:- 27-8-2025 Service Tax<br>Got 3 Replies<br>Service Tax<br>Two Show Cause Notice one for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09 and another for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 were issued to the same tax-payer in 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14 on different ground. Later on both the case was adjudicated with a common order and demand proposed in SCN was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the party filed an Appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT passing the order directed the party to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh order but on the condition of verification of pre-deposit amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by the party. The CESTAT in his order dated 09.09.2014 mentioned that 4 months would be sufficient to pass the Order after verification of payment. The Adjudicating Authority due to whatever the reason be neither verified the payment nor passed the fresh order within 4 months. In August 2025, department has issued a letter seeking clarification on payment of pre-deposit amount made in compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iance of the CESTAT Order dated 09.09.2014. Actually the payment of pre-deposit was mistakenly made on another STC instead of the STC on which SCN was issued and demand was proposed. However, both the STC pertains to the same party. Departments view is that the payment has not been made and the order of CESTAT has not been complied with till now. The deposit made by the party do not pertains to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Registration which is taken for Audit and Demand. Hence, the Department also requested to the CESTAT through letter to re-store the previous Adjudication Order on the ground of non-compliance. Now, the question is whether the action taken by the department is legal. Is it not hit by the time limitation given by the CESTAT for passing the fresh order i.e 4 months from the date of passing the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder. Pre-deposit made in another STC of the same party is not liable to be treated as compliance of CESTAT Order which the basic ground of department for seeking restoration of previous order. Reply By Shilpi Jain: The Reply: You could consider approaching the HC in this regard and ask the proceedings to be terminated as there is undue delay. Reply By Shilpi Jain: The Reply: At the same time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bring out the wrong deposit made and claim refund for it. Reply By KASTURI SETHI: The Reply: Now, the question is whether the action taken by the department is legal. Is it not hit by the time limitation given by the CESTAT for passing the fresh order i.e 4 months from the date of passing the order. Ans. Must contest. It is non-compliance of the Order of CESTAT. Take shelter of case laws. Pre-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deposit made in another STC of the same party is not liable to be treated as compliance of CESTAT Order which the basic ground of department for seeking restoration of previous order. Ans. It is a clerical mistake. Can be contested for adjustment, if PAN is same.<br> Discussion Forum - Knowledge Sharing ....