Allowed

S.K.Arora v. the Commissioner of Central Excise Thane -i

Bombay HC2 Aug 2013CEXA/146/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the central excise appeal seeking complete waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty and stay of recovery proceedings, citing retrospective exemption notification No. 20/2009 S.T. and referenced precedent Sharma Transports. The order is limited to the stay application.

What did the court decide?

Grant of complete waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty for hearing the appeal on merits and stay of recovery proceedings pending appeal.

S.K.Arora Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise Thane -i — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2013)

kambli

CEXA(L)-222-13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.222 OF 2013

S.K. Arora

..Appellant

Vs.

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane1.

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal for the appellant. Mr.Pradeep S. Jetly for respondent in Appeal No.97 of 2013.

¶13

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 2 AUGUST 2013

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

This appeal is directed against the order dated 10 June 2013 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench, Mumbai (Tribunal) on the appellant's application for dispensing with predeposit of duty and penalty for the purpose of hearing its appeal from the order dated 16 September 2011. By the adjudication order dated 16 September 2011, the appellant was held liable to service tax as Tour Operator for the period February 2003 to June 2007.

1 of 3

CEXA(L)-222-13

kambli

By the impugned order the Tribunal has granted waiver of predeposit of the balance of duty & penalty on the condition that the appellant shall predeposit Rs.9,60,000/- to the credit of the Revenue. This was on the ground that for normal period of limitation the appellant is covered by the definition of `Tour Operator'.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the revenue, we are of the view that the appellant is prima facie covered by the exemption notification No.20/2009 S.T. dated 7 July 2009, which has been given retrospective effect from 1 April 2000 by section 77 of the Finance Act, 2011. We also note the order of the Tribunal in Sharma Transports v/s. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 249, where at the final hearing of the appeal the demand of service tax on Tour Operators was held to be not sustainable as it was covered by aforesaid notification No.20/2009 S.T. Dated 7 July 2009 which was applied retrospectively with effect from 1 April 2000. In view of the above this is a fit case for grant of complete waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty for the purpose of hearing the appellant's appeal on merits and also to stay recovery proceedings pursuant to the adjudication order dated 16 September 2011.

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

kambli 3 CEXA(L)-222-13

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are for limited purpose of deciding the stay application during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall decide the controversy between the parties at the final hearing, without being influenced by this order and without insisting on any predeposit.

¶25

Appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶26

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

S.K.Arora v. the Commissioner of Central Excise Thane -i

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.Arora v. the Commissioner of Central Excise Thane -i

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax, City-Iii, Mumbai Vs M/S. Scici Ltd. (Now Merged With M/S. Icici Ltd.

Amber Aniruddha Mufti Vs Commissioner of Customs (General)

M/S Shree Laxmi Textiles Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai I and Anr.

Gurudev Forging Private Limited and Ors. Vs Sudhakar Beniram Kotkar

M/S Amitkumar Ajaykumar and Brothers Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane - II

M/S. Marks Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax - 4 and 2 Ors.