Shyam Sunder Singh vs Commissioner of Customs

We have heard Shri Nishant Mishra assisted by Shri Aditya Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.C. Shukla appears for the respondents. This appeal u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act arises out of an order dated 15-7-2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissing the miscellaneous application for extension of time to deposit balance amount of demand in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal dated 15-4-2013. The CESTAT decided the application u/s 35F of the Act and has stayed all further proceedings on the condition that the appellant remits 50% of the service tax within eight weeks failing which stay order would stand dissolved. The compliance was required to be made by 25th June, 2013.

The petitioner moved an application dated 24th June, 2013, a day before the time for deposit were expiring, stating therein that the party has already deposited service tax of Rs. 14,75,185/- and interest of Rs. 14,23,756/- vide challans between 13-4-2010 to 30th August, 2011. A prayer was made to adjust the deposits and to allow six weeks'' time to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 7,05,180/-.

The application came up for hearing and was dismissed on 15th July, 2013 on the ground that the particulars of such deposits were neither brought to the notice of adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority and even if the amounts claimed to have been remitted are reckoned, the petitioner is seen to have defaulted in compliance with the order dated 15-4-2013 since the assessed liability confirmed in appeal is Rs. 43,60,729/-. The Tribunal found that 50% of the liability would be Rs. 21.80 lakhs approximately and that no reasons have been given to seek further time to deposit the balance of the amount.

Shri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that an amount of Rs. 14,75,185/- stood deposited towards service tax by five challans between 13th April, 2010 to 30th August, 2011 and that interest of Rs. 14,23,756/- was also deposited vide challans dated 8-10-2011 and 3-10-2011.. The appellant had sought six weeks'' time to deposit the balance amount. The Tribunal instead of granting time has rejected the application taking a very strict view of the matter. He submits that the appellant is petty contractor and that he had suffered heart attack in August, 2013 resulting into default. He submits that since the appeal stands dismissed in consequence to non-compliance of the order u/s 35F, the Court may interfere to protect the interest of the appellant.

We do not find any substance in the contention. The petitioner had an opportunity to deposit the 50% of the amount within six weeks of the order dated 25-6-2013. If there were any deposit, which were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal earlier, the same could be adjusted by the appellant and the remaining amount could be deposited by him. He has deposited the remaining amount of Rs. 7,05,180/- on 23rd August, 2013. The impugned order was passed on 15th July, 2013.

In the application for extension of time, the appellant did not offer any explanation at all for delay or for seeking further time in deposit.

From the orders passed by the Tribunal we find that the petitioner was given sufficient time to deposit the balance amount.

We do not find any good reason to interfere with the orders nor any question of law arise to be considered in this appeal. The Central excise appeal is accordingly dismissed.