Full Text
CUSAA 12/2015 & C.M.Nos.9228-9230/2015
ALLIANCE STRATEGIES LTD.,THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
Appellant
Through: Mr.Piyush Kumar,Ms.Shikha Sapra and Mr.Tushar Joshi,Advs.
Respondent
Through: Mr.Kamal Nljhawan,Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Sumit Gaur,Advs.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
20.05.2015
ORDER
1. In these two appeals, the grievance of the appellant is that the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's(CESTAT)condition for hearing of pre-deposit(to the extent of20% ofthe penalty amount), is onerous and excessive.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the appeal was filed,the notification w.e.f. 06.08.2014, clarifying that ifamount to the tune of 7.5% of the demand is deposited, the pre-deposit condition would be deemed to be satisfied,came into force. 2015:DHC:11848-DB >
3. Learned counsel for the Revenue urged that having regard to the admitted facts ofthis case and the statements ofthe appellant's director, no reliefis warranted.
4. In view ofthe statement,there is no dispute that merely a week after, the appeal was filed,the notification requiring pre-deposit fixed to the tune of[7].5% ofthe determined duty and penalty liability came into force. In the light of this fact and the further circumstance that the director made admissions with respect to forgery,this Court is ofthe opinion that interest ofjustice would be served ifpre-deposit amountis reduced to halfinstead of 20%.
5. The pre-deposit condition shall be deemed to be satisfied if the appellant deposits 10% of the penalty determined as against it within six weeks. The impugned order ofthe CESTAT is modified to this extent.
6. The appeals are allowed in the aboveterms. The pending applications also stand disposed of.
7. Copyofthe orderbegiven dasti. | S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J R.K.GAUBA,J MAY 20,2015 mr