2026 (8) TMI 856

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issed for noncompliance with the order-in stay petition dated 13.06.2014 directing pre-deposit of 50% of the adjudged Service Tax demand. 2. The fact, in brief, is that the appellant M/s ECI-BJCL JV, executed EPC/ works contract relating to construction of dams, reservoirs, canals and allied structures of the Government of Andhra Pradesh during the period from June, 2007 to March, 2012. 3. The Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2012 demanded Service Tax amounting to Rs. 43,86,471/- under Works Contract Service. 4. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand vide Order-in-Original dated 09.01.2014. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), along with an application for wavier of pre-deposit. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....well-settled parameters governing grant of waiver, namely: (i) Existence of a prima facie case; (ii) Balance of convenience; and (iii) Financial hardship. 11. According to the appellant, the dismissal of appeal merely for noncompliance with the pre-deposit order, without deciding the appeal on merits and without considering legal submissions violates the principles of natural justice. Reliance is place upon Badve Helmets India Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE, Aurangabad, 2012 (28) STR 403 (Tri-Mumbai)], DSM Sugar Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals [2009 (248) ELT 49 (All)], Pennar Industries Ltd., Vs State of A.P. [2015 (322) ELT 25 (SC)], Amber Anuruddha Mufti Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) [2013 (295) ELT 509 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....abad [2009 (243) E.L.T. 420 (Tri.-Del.)] (iv) Union of India Vs M/s Aakar Advertising [2008 (11) STR 5 (Raj.)] (v) M/s Navin Chandra Chhotelal Vs Central Board of Excise & Customs [1981(8) ELT 679 (SC)] (vi) Vijay Prakash D. Mehta Vs Collector of Customs [(1998) 39 ELT 178 (SC)] (vii) Shreewood Products Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise [(2003) 160 ELT 920 (Tri-Del)] (viii) Final Order No. A/30124/2025 dated 16.04.2025 of CESTAT, Hyderabad in the case of Nahida Nasreen. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 16. The undisputed facts reveal that the Commissioner (Appeals), granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The appellant sought adjourn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bligations of the parties continue to be governed by the unamended provisions. Therefore, the subsequent deposit of 10% made by the appellant cannot cure the earlier default committed in complying with the conditional stay order passed under the then exiting statutory regime. 19. The law is well settled that the right of appeal is a statutory right and is subject to the conditions prescribed by the statute. Under the unamended under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner (Appeals), possessed jurisdiction to insist upon a suitable pre-deposit while considering waiver applications. Once such a condition was imposed, it was incumbent upon the appellant either to comply with the condition or the seek appropriate relief....