Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Padmawati Communication vs CCE, Jaipur

Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 22 January 2015 · Citation: (2015) 01 CESTAT CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Raghuram, J · R. K. Singh, Technical Member
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Service Tax Miscellaneous No. 50052 Of 2015, Service Tax Appeal No. 60083 Of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 494 words
1.

The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-II by the order dated 24.2.2012 confirmed service tax demand of Rs.41,64,840/- besides

interest and penalties as specified therein against the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred by appellant before the Commissioner

(Appeals) which was rejected vide the impugned order dated 7.6.2013. The stay application was disposed on 27.11.2014, ex-parte.

2.

Since notice of hearing of the stay application dispatched to the appellant was returned with a postal endorsement ""unclaimed"", by the order dated

27.11.2014 and for reasons recorded therein we dismissed the stay application for default and directed the appellant to pre-deposit the assessed

liability to tax, interest and penalty within four weeks and report compliance by 22.1.2015. The order also endorsed a default clause stipulating that

appeal would stand dismissed for failure of pre-deposit.

3.

Against a pre-deposit order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) (in the appeal preferred by the appellant herein) directing pre-

deposit of Rs.25 lakhs, the appellant filed a writ petition before High Court of Rajasthan. During pendency of the writ petition, appellant received a

notice for personal hearing from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), scheduled on 29.5.2013. On 22.7.2013, the writ petition was dismissed by

the Rajasthan High Court and the appellant was directed to comply with the order of the Appellate Commissioner, dated 11.2.2013.

4.

Against the (impugned) order dated 7.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant not only preferred this appeal but also filed a

Misc. application before the High Court of Rajasthan seeking inter alia, re-call or modification of the High Court's order dated 22.7.2013 as well as

interdiction of the impugned order of the Id. Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

On 4.12.2013, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the Misc. application preferred by the appellant and directed a further deposit of Rs.16,64,840/-

(after noticing that Rs. 25 lakhs as per the interim direction of the Id. Commissioner was already remitted). The High Court directed that upon the

further deposit of Rs.16,64,840/-, the impugned appellate order dated 7.6.2013 stands annulled and the appeal preferred by the appellant against the

primary adjudication order dated 24.2.2012, shall stand revived.

6.

The present application is filed seeking re-call of the order dated 27.11.2014 which endorsed a default clause stipulating dismissal of the appeal on

non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. Ld. Counsel also states that in the light of the Final Order of the Rajasthan High Court dated 4.12.2013 the

appeal itself has become infructuous since the appellant has deposited the amount of Rs.16,64,840/-, in terms of the High Court's order.

7.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, while recording our disapproval of the conduct of the appellant in pursuing parallel remedies against the

order dated 7.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur, in view of the final order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated

4.12.2013, we recall the order dated 27.11.2014 and dismiss the appeal as infructuous. The Misc. application is also disposed of.