IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
T. NANDA KUMAR SINGH, J.
Rani Motors (Authorized Maruti Dealer) - Appellant
Vs.
The Additional Director, The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence & ors.- Respondents
FA No.3/2014
Decided On : 07.04.2015
Finance Act, 1994 - Waiver of pre-deposit - Sections 76, 77, 78 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides for the limitation period for filing an appeal against the order of the Central Excise Officer. The court analyzed the interpretation of the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 85 and the applicability of the limitation period. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of whether the period of limitation is to be counted from the date of receiving the copy of the original order or from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order dated 17.08.2010.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate tribunal on the ground of being barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court remitted the appeal back to the tribunal to decide the issue of whether the period of limitation is to be counted from the date of receiving the copy of the original order or from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order dated 17.08.2010.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the limitation period for filing an appeal against the order of the Central Excise Officer under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 85 and the applicability of the limitation period.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remitted back to the tribunal for further consideration.
(Justice T. Nandakumar Singh)
Heard Mr. SP Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the appellate tribunal dated 11.07.2014 dismissing the appeal being No.ST/A/70356/2013 only on the ground that the appeal filed by the present appellant is barred by limitation.
3. The concise fact leading to the filing of the present appeal is noted. The appellant was seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.7,73,530 imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77 and also penalty (not qualified) under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It appears from the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the order in original dated 17.08.2010
was furnished to the appellant on 19.01.2011. The order for furnishing the original copy dated 17.08.2010 reads as follows:-
Government of India
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
MORELLOW COMPOUND M.G.ROAD, SHILLONG-793001
ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.09/JOINT COMMISSIONER/ST/2010
DATED SHILLONG, THE 17th August, 2010
(PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE,
SHILLONG
1. This copy is granted free of charge for the private use of the person to whom it is issued.
2. Any person deeming himself aggrieved by this Order may appeal against the order of the Joint Commissioner to the Commissioner (Appeals). Customs and Central Excise, Nilman Phukan Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005, in FORM-EA-I within sixty days from the date of personal service on, or the date of receipt by post by the party. It should bear a court fee stamp worth Re.1.00. It must be accompanied by:-
(a) Copy of the Order
(b) This copy of the order or another copy of the order which
must bear a Court Fee Stamp as below:-
Rs.0.75 paisa
Subject: In the matter of show cause notice issued to M/s Rani
Motors (authorized Maruti Dealer) Nongthymmai Jelly’s Shop,
Shillong-793014 Meghalaya
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
I have carefully gone through the case records and the submission made by the Noticee in the course of personal hearing. It is alleged that the Noticee have not obtained Service tax Registration and provided taxable service in the category Business Auxiliary Service. It is also alleged that the Noticee have not declared the taxable value and not paid Service Tax in suppression of materials facts. The Noticee, also have not disputed the allegation rather admitted and made payment of Service Tax including interest before the show cause notice has been issued. On examination of the records available I find the allegations have been substantiated on the basis of the evidences brought on record during investigation. I, therefore find the charges framed in the show cause notice are well founded and justified. I also find that the Noticee have not obtained registration in the category of Business Auxiliary Service and not made payment of due Service Tax within the period prescribed in the relevant Section of the Finance Act. Accordingly, I hold the Noticee have contravened the provision of Section 66, 67, 68, 69, of the Finance Act,1994 and Section 91 and 95 of the Finance Act, 2004 read with rule 6 of Service Tax, Rules 1994 for which they have rendered themselves liable for penal action under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. I further find that the Noticee have not filed the Service Tax return for the services provided under Business Auxiliary Service within the prescribed period and therefore they have rendered themselves liable for penal action under section 77 of the Finance Act,1994.
In view of the discussion and findings above, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1. I confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 7,58,362/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs fifty eight thousand three hundred and sixty) only and Education Cess amounting to Rs. 15,168/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand and one hundred sixty eight) in terms o
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.