By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, JULY 23, 2014 : THE appellant had filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order passed by the CCE & ST, Trichy wherein a service tax demand of Rs.3,02,46,974/- was confirmed apart from imposition of penalty and interest.

By an order dated 23.1.2013, the Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the appellant already deposited a sum of Rs.77,32,903/-, directed the appellant to pre deposit a further sum of Rs.1.20 crores within a period of six weeks and report compliance for obtaining stay from recovery of the adjudged dues.

The appellant deposited only Rs.20 lakhs and filed an application seeking extension of time. The Tribunal allowed this application and directed the appellant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1 crore within a period of eight weeks. In the said order, the Tribunal observed that if the appellant does not deposit the amount within the stipulated period, the appeal will be dismissed.

The appellant deposited a further amount of Rs.25 lakhs.

Noting that the appellant had failed to comply with its order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

Against this order the appellant is before the Madras High Court.

After hearing both sides, the High Court observed -

++ Section 35-F of the CEA, 1944 makes it amply clear that the whenever any appeal is filed, the person filing the appeal should deposit before the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied, unless the same is dispensed with by the Tribunal. In case such deposit as contemplated under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act is not deposited, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

++ We find that the Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel on either side; perusing the records and keeping in mind the undue hardship that would be caused to the appellant and the interest of the Revenue, had shown sufficient indulgence to the appellant by granting time to deposit a part of the tax demanded. Thereafter, the Tribunal also granted extension of time to comply with the said order, of course with a default clause that the appeal will be dismissed in the event of non-compliance of the conditional order within the stipulated time. As the appellant failed to comply with the conditional order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has, in our considered opinion, rightly dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act.

Holding that there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal, the same was dismissed.

(See 2014-TIOL-1188-HC-MAD-ST)