AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Alok Sharma, who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28-6-2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Division-I, Lucknow, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been returned back to the petitioner by the impugned letter dated 17-9-2014 on the ground that the petitioner did not deposit 7.5% of the Service Tax along with the appeal in accordance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Mr. Alok Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, submits that in view of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 substituted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 6-8-2014, the appeal cannot be entertained under sub-section (1) of Section 35 unless the appellant has deposited 7.5% of the duty. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit 7.5% of the Service Tax and as such, the appeal so preferred by the petitioner has rightly been returned to the petitioner by the Superintendent (Appeals) vide impugned letter dated 17-9-2014.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to deposit 7.5% of the duty.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we provide that in case the petitioner prefers an application for condonation of delay along with an appeal after depositing 7.5% of duty within fifteen days, we hope and trust that the Appellate Authority will consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, sympathetically and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.