75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

May 2015

[2015] 37 STR 963 (Ker.) E. M. Mani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Cochin

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Stay Order should be passed only after hearing the appellant and considering the merits put forth.

Facts:
During the hearing of stay application, the learned counsel for the appellant was not present and adjournment was requested. However, the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing and passed a stay order with the condition of payment of entire service tax with interest along with 50% penalty. Subsequently, the modification application of the appellant also was rejected. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.

Held:
Since the Counsel for the appellant did not remain present, the order was passed without hearing the appellant. Further, while the order rejecting modification application, the Tribunal focused on its limit on jurisdiction in review applications. Therefore, both the orders were passed without having regard to the merits of the case. Accordingly, in view of the above and having regard to the huge quantum of service tax demand ordered to be deposited, the matter was remanded for fresh hearing and stay order.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Lease vis-à-vis Service, Supremacy

TS-660-ITAT-2014(DEL) Consulting Engineering Corporation vs. JDIT A.Y: 2003-05, Dated: 31-10-2014