CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
MATHEW JOHN, P.G. CHACKO, JJ.
Om Sakthi Travels (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai -Respondent
FINAL ORDER NO. 4000 OF 2013 APPEAL NO. ST/331 OF 2012
Decided On : 01-01-2013
Advocates Appeared:
S. Ramachandran,P. Arul
ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - We had directed the appellant to pre-deposit theentire amount of service tax and report compliance on 26.09.2012 vide StayOrder No.591/2012, dated 19.07.2012. Eventually, there have been no Benchsitting for some time, the matter arises today for report of compliance. Thelearned advocate for the appellant submits that a writ petition has been filedagainst the above stay order and an application for stay of operation of thedirection for pre-deposit is pending with the Hon'ble High Court. He prays forkeeping the matter in abeyance till the said stay application is disposed of bythe Hon'ble High Court. This prayer is strongly opposed. It is pointed out bythe learned Suptd.-AR that even the writ petition was filed after the periodgranted to the party for pre-deposit ran out.
2.Considering the circumstances placed before us, we are not impressed with theplea of the learned advocate for keeping the matter in abeyance. Apparently,after the prescribed time for pre-deposit expired, the party filed a writpetition together with stay application, which are said to be pending beforethe Hon'ble High Court. The learned advocate is unable to tell us as to whenthe stay application will be taken up by the Hon'ble High Court. In any case,it is not in dispute that our stay order is still in force but yet to becomplied with. There is not even a request for extension of time for makingpre-deposit. In the circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the appealfor non-compliance with the relevant statutory provision. Accordingly, theappeal is dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central ExciseAct, 1944.
In favour ofrevenue.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document