M/s Raj Chakraborty Productions. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Kolkata (South)
Service Tax
2019 (3) TMI 305 – CESTAT KOLKATA – 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 286 (Tri. – Kolkata)
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 8-2-2019
MA (COD)-77826/2018 And Appeal No. ST/79595/2018 – MO/75096/2019 & FO/A/75195/2019
Service Tax
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri A. Sen, & Shri S. Mondal, & Shri Roshan Sengupta, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
Shri A. K. Biswas, Suptd. (AR) for the Respondent(s)
ORDER
Per Shri P. K. Choudhary:
The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the appeal. The matter was heard at length on 18.01.2019.
2. After hearing both the sides on the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal, I find that the delay has occurred owing to sickness of the Counsel. After considering the submission of both sides, I find that there is sufficient reason for condoning the delay, and I do so.
3. With the consent of both s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
A deals with power of adjudication. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the Learned Commissioner for withdrawing the facility of payment of outstanding service tax dues in installments as communicated by letter dated 17th July, 2018 has a civil consequence in so far as the recovery of service tax is concerned. It has also submitted that the impugned order had also given an erroneous reason for withdrawal of payments of outstanding demand by installments. He relied upon the following decisions:-
(a) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Girish B Mishra Order dated 13.02.2013 in Tax Appeal No. 951 of 2012 of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.
(b) C. C. E. B. Maharashtra State Bureau (2013) 35 Taxmann Com. 8 (CESTAT).
The Learned A. R. for the Revenue strongly opposed submission of the Leaned Counsel. It is submitted that the Board Circular is an executive order.
6. On perusal of the impugned communication dated 17th July, 2018 of the Learned Commissioner, I fin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
1994. It may be mentioned that Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Girish B. Mishra (Supra) after considering Section 2(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, held that such order is appealable as it has civil consequence affecting rights directly.
7. On merit, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that by order dated 10th April, 2018 the Ld. Commissioner allowed to pay the outstanding dues in 21 installments for Rs. 3,50,000.00 per month from April 2018 to November 2018 and the balance amount of Rs. 3,25,505/- would be paid by December 2019. It is submitted that there was delay in payment of dues for the month of June 2018 and on 13.07.2018 payment was made for Rs. 7,00,000/- for the months of June 2018 and July 2018. There was no default of payment of installments while passing the impugned Order dated 17th July, 2018.
8. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that the Board Circular dated 28th February, 2015 clearly stated that in case of default in pay
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dated 17.01.2017 and 04.01.2018 requested the Ld. Commissioner for payment of arrears in installments, which is backed by the Board Circular dated 28.02.2015 being No. 996/3/2015-CX. In the said Circular, the Ld. Commissioner had allowed the payment of the outstanding dues in 21 installments as communicated by letter dated 10th April 2018. By the impugned communication dated 17th July, 2018 It was informed that as the appellant have defaulted in the monthly payments, the Ld. Commissioner has withdrawn the facility for payment of outstanding dues in installments, against which the appellant filed this appeal.
10. In the present case, I find that the appellant failed to pay only one installment for the month of June 2018 within the stipulated period. In fact, the installment for the month of June was paid in the next month on 13.07.2018 alongwith the installment of July 2018. Therefore, the impugned Order dated 17.07.2018 was issued. It seems that the payment of installments of June and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =