2025 (9) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pugned order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed all the appeals being not-maintainable for failing to deposit the mandatory pre-deposit. As all the appeals have been dismissed by a common order, therefore, all the appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. The details of the all the appeals are given herein below: Sr. No. Appeal No. Appellant (M/s) OIA No. & Date Amount of Service Tax (Rs.) Pre-Deposit amount (Rs.) 1. ST/60675/2023 Surya Digital Network LUD-EXCUS-001-APP-480-485/2023 dated 22.06.2023 3,04,075/- 22,806/- 2. ST/60688/2023 Prince Cable Network -do- 1,36,991/- 10,274/- 3. ST/60690/2023 Saini Cable Network -....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osit. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts, the law and the evidence on record. He further submits that as per the table (3) in the impugned order, it is mentioned that the appellants have deposited the amounts as shown therein vide different challans and date as mentioned in the said table. He further submits that the appellants were registered and they have paid the said amount in 2017 itself, which is sufficient to take care of the mandatory pre-deposit as required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as made applicable ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave not been able to establish the payment of service tax with regard to the impugned demand, therefore, the present case needs to be remanded to the Original Authority with a direction to examine the aspect of pre-deposit made by the appellants vide various challans as shown in table (3). 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record, I find that as per the appellant, they have made the pre-deposit as shown in table (3) but the same was not considered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the absence of clear proof that the said amount relates to the period in question. In view of these circumstances, it will be appropriated for me to remand the matter to the Original Authority with a direc....