Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 1523
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
S. S. Garg, Judicial Member
MS GURJIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
LUDHIANA-CGST – Respondent
Service Tax Appeal No. 60089 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Tax Law - Service Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Remand - Compliance of Statutory Requirements - Where the appellant subsequently complies with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement, the matter may be remanded to the appellate authority for decision on merits in accordance with the principles of natural justice. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the appeal should be remanded for decision on merits after the appellant complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shivang Puri
For the Respondents: Ram Niwas
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal rejected due to non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's claim of compliance and request for remand to decide on merits. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. remand ordered upon compliance with pre-deposit requirements. (Para 5 , 6) |
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Ludhiana, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant being non-maintainable as the appellant had not made the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided their appeal on merits after hearing the same on merits and has rejected the appeal because the appellant could not make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned Counsel further submits that now the appellant has complied with the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned Counsel further prays that the present appeal may be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to decide the same on merits.
4. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative for the department reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
5. In view of the fact that the appellant has now complied with the requirement of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to decide the same on merits after following the principles of natural justice and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
6. In result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
