Dismissed

M/S Chitra Construction P Ltd. v. the Customs Excise and

Madras HC8 Jul 2014CMA/1706/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Chitra Constructions Ltd. against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the conditional order requiring the deposit of tax and penalty.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act.

M/S Chitra Construction P Ltd. Vs the Customs Excise and — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 8.7.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶6

C.M.A.No.1706 of 2014 and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2014
Chitra Constructions P. Ltd.
Chitra Avenue, No.9
Choolaimedu High Road
Chennai – 600 094. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal
Shastri Bhavan Annexe, 1 st Floor
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Commissioner of Service Tax
Newry Towers, Anna Nagar
Chennai – 600 040. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Appeal against the Final Order No.40249 of 2013 in Appeal No.ST/728/2010, dated 2.7.2013 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to grant absolute waives of pre-deposit of service tax amount of Rs.1,08,32,474/- demanded under proviso to sec 73 (I), penalty amount of Rs.1,22,23,019/- imposed under Sec 78, penalty of Rs.2,000/- imposed under Sec 77 and appropriate interest under Section 75 of the Finanse Act, 1994 arising out of the orderin-original No.10/2010 dated 25.08.2010 of the Commissioner of service Tax, Chennai - 35.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.K.Jayachandran For Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran Standing Counsel for 2^nd respondent

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

(Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.)

¶13

The appeal is filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, dated 2.7.2013, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein for non-compliance of the conditional order of stay granted by the Tribunal.

¶14

2.1. The brief facts of the case are as under: The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order passed by the second respondent in Order-in-Original No.10/2010-S.Tax/Ch.IV, dated 25.8.2010, demanding service tax of Rs.1,19,67,127/-, apart from penalty and interest. Along with the appeal, the appellant also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts demanded.

¶15

2.2. By order dated 9.5.2013, the Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the appellant already paid a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- towards their liability, directed the appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs.30,00,000/- within a period of six weeks from the date of the said order and report compliance on 27.6.2013. In the said order, the Tribunal held that upon deposit of the amount, as stated above, the pre-deposit of balance dues arising from the impugned order shall be waived and recovery thereof shall be stayed pending the appeal.

¶16

2.3. Thereafter, when the Tribunal took up the matter on 1.7.2013, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and the appellant had also not filed any compliance report in terms of the order dated 9.5.2013. Taking note of the said fact, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

¶17

2.4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed for the relief stated supra.

¶18

We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶19

Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act 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.

¶20

In the case on hand, 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. The

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

appellant has not chosen to seek modification of the said order or extension of time and in fact, failed to comply with the conditional order. Therefore, the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, has rightly dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act.

¶23

For the foregoing reasons, we find no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) Dated: 17.07.2014

¶25

//True Copy// To

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Assistant Registrar,
Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench
1 st Floor, Shastri Bhavan Annexe
Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Commissioner of Service Tax
Newry Towers, Anna Nagar
Chennai – 600 040.
1 CC to Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Advocate SR.No.29683
C.M.A.No.1706 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
RBD(CO)
JJM (18.07.2014)

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S Chitra Construction P Ltd. v. the Customs Excise and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Chitra Construction P Ltd. v. the Customs Excise and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. N.S.K. Builder P. Ltd. Vs the Customs Excise and

M/S Sri Gokulam Hotels Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/s perfect vending India Pvt. Vs the Customs Excise and Service