2025 (9) TMI 1605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "5. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, I hereby reject the subject appeal [Appeal No. 109-CE/APPL-MRT/MRT/2022-23 dated 18.08.2022] filed by M/s Aaran Communication, Shop No. 20, Arya Samaj Building, Station Road, Moradabad-244001 cdue to the failure of the appellant to make the mandatory pre-deposit in terms of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 2.1 From the above impugned order it is evident that Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant only for want of mandatory pre-deposit. 3.1 I have heard Shri Darshan Gupta, Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative appearing for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../2003 dated 20.05.2003 clarifying as follows: "I am directed to say that a representation had been received by the Board raising apprehensions regarding using wrong Accounting Code for payment of Service Tax. Whether, amounts to having paid the Service Tax or not. 2. The Board has examined the issue. In this connection, I am directed to clarify that the assessee need not be asked to pay the service tax again. In such cased the matter should be sorted with the P.A.O. As regards to the cases where the assessee was asked to pay service tax again, the amount thus paid may be refunded by the concerned divisional Asst. Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner." 4.4 Similar view was expressed in the following decisions: â€....