SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

P.G.CHACKO, P.KARTHIKEYAN
Hyundai Motor (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.V. Raman,Smt. R. Bhagyadevi

ORDER

P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we take up the appeal.

2. The original authority had demanded Service-tax from the appellants for the period November 2002 to July 2004 in respect of a service received by them from their foreign collaborators. This service was held to be "Consulting Engineer’s Service" by that authority. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed therewith an application for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) considered that application and directed predeposit of Rs. 5 crores, which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 1 crore, which was required to be deposited on or before 13-2-2006. The party did not deposit this amount within the appointed date. Consequently, their appeal itself happened to be dismissed for want of compliance with section 35 of the Central Excise Act. Hence the present appeal.

3. Ld. Counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top