CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE
Final Order No. 21042 / 2014
Application(s) Involved:
ST/Stay/25134/2013 in ST/25164/2013-DB
Appeal(s) Involved:
ST/25164/2013-DB
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 04/2012 dated 17/10/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-III ]
Dr. Reddy s Laboratories Ltd.
6-3-865, II Floor, Madhupala Towers, Green Lands, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016
Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-III
Kendriya Shulk Bhavan,
L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad - 500 004
Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Mr. S. Teli, AR For the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date of Hearing: 01/07/2014 Date of Decision: 01/07/2014
Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY
Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. On going through the records, we find that this stay application was listed on 08.05.2013, 26.09.2013, 06.01.2014 and today. On all the occasions appellant was not represented. Therefore we do not consider it necessary that we should further adjourn the matter. On going through the records we also find that a written submission had been made by the appellant when the matter was fixed for hearing on 06.01.2014. In that representation, the appellants had requested that the matter may be kept pending till the original adjudicating authority passes an order in a similar matter remanded by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 25372 dated 29.05.2013. We are unable to appreciate the logic behind this request. It is also not known as to the reasons for delay in adjudication of the remanded matter. Appellants have stated that they had not received any intimation of hearing after the matter was remanded by this Tribunal. No reason has been stated for non-appearance or not representing the matter before us.
2. As an alternative prayer appellant has requested that the matter may be remanded without insisting on a pre-deposit. Since we have already considered the issue earlier and considered it appropriate that appellant should deposit roughly 50% of the amount demanded, we do not see any reason why we should change the norms and pass a different order. In our opinion it would be appropriate that the Commissioner decides both the matters together if no decision has been taken earlier. If there was a justification for requiring the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount for remanding earlier, there is no justification provided for changing the view entertained last time. That being the position, we consider it appropriate that the appellant should deposit an amount of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores only) and report compliance to Commissioner within 8 weeks. After taking note of compliance, the Commissioner may proceed to adjudicate the matter. Since the amount involved is substantial and appellants have been required to make pre-deposit for remanding the matter and earlier remand order has not been implemented yet, in the interest of justice we consider it appropriate that a direction should be given to the Commissioner to ensure that both the matters are decided without any further delay and in any case not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of this order subject to the condition that appellants make the complete pre-deposit within time and report compliance and appellants also cooperate in the proceedings. It is made clear that if appellant failed to deposit the amount, this order shall stand vacated and appeal would stand dismissed and Revenue shall be at liberty to realize the entire dues.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced
in open court on 01.07.2014)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY)
TECHNICAL MEMBER
iss
No comments:
Post a Comment