ECI BJCL JV Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad)
Summary: CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal filed by ECI BJCL JV and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order dismissing its service tax appeal for failure to comply with a direction requiring pre-deposit of 50% of the adjudged demand. The appellant had executed EPC/works contracts relating to construction of dams, reservoirs, canals and allied structures for the Government of Andhra Pradesh during June 2007 to March 2012. A show-cause notice dated 23.10.2012 demanded service tax of Rs.43,86,471/- under Works Contract Service, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority on 09.01.2014. The appellant challenged the order and sought waiver of pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) fixed the stay application for hearing on 12.06.2014; although the appellant sought an adjournment, the request was declined and, by order dated 13.06.2014, it was directed to deposit 50% of the service tax demand. The appellant subsequently requested a speaking order considering its legal submissions and precedents, but did not comply with the pre-deposit condition. Its appeal was consequently dismissed on 23.07.2014.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant argued that its appeal had been dismissed without adjudication on merits and that the Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to consider its prima facie case, balance of convenience and financial hardship. It relied, inter alia, upon Lanco Infratech Ltd., Badve Helmets India Pvt. Ltd., DSM Sugar, Pennar Industries Ltd., Amber Anuruddha Mufti, Surya Pharmaceutical Ltd., B. Rama Rao & Company and Thermopads Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue maintained that adequate opportunity had been provided, the adjournment request had been considered and declined for recorded reasons, and failure to satisfy the pre-deposit condition justified dismissal.
