Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Commr. of S.T.

These appeals are preferred against the order passed by the Tribunal, who declined to waive the pre-deposit which is a condition precedent for maintaining an appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that on an earlier occasion, the very same Tribunal has granted the said benefit, entertained the appeal and the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority again confirmed the demand. When they preferred an appeal for the second time, the Tribunal has declined to extend the benefit which it had granted earlier Farther, virtually while deciding the request for the waiver of the pre-deposit, the appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of deduction, of input tax and therefore, he submits that the impugned order requires to be set aside.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the Revenue supported the impugned order.

As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, on an earlier occasion, the Tribunal did not consider the entire gamut of the issue. An observation was made to the effect that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of input tax, without properly going into the question involved. However ultimately, the matter was remanded to the appellate authority. The appellate authority after considering the rival contentions has passed the detailed order giving reasons for declining the benefit to the appellant. Now it is that order which is under challenge before the Tribunal. We do not see any justification to waive the pre-deposit or otherwise, we hove to hold that the said provision is not applicable to the statutory authority and Government departments. When the legislation has not made any distinction, we cannot make such distinction by judicial order. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the appellate authority for insisting the payment of the entire amount of duty as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. However, at that stage itself Tribunal appears to have made up its mind to the effect that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of this input tax, which was erroneous. The appellant is yet to argue the case on merits. The respondent is also to be heard. It is only thereafter the Tribunal can come to the conclusion one way or the other. Therefore, the observations made on the merits of the appeal should not be taken into consideration as a binding precedent while deciding the appeal on merits. The Tribunal shall consider the matter on merits and in accordance with law, ignoring the observations made by it in the impugned order, that would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Four weeks time is granted to the appellant to make the pre-deposit and thereafter, to address the arguments on appeal, on merits.