By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
Petitioner is bound to pay 7.5% of the total service tax demanded at the time of filing the appeal before the CESTAT.
Facts:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority regarding admissibility of the benefit of Notification 12/2003-ST.
Held:
The Hon’ble High Court held that the disputed questions could be raised before the CESTAT as the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal and is bound to pay 7.5% of the total service tax demanded for filing the appeal which cannot be reduced by this court.
Note: Readers may also note a recent decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Premier Polyspin Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2015-TIOL-1265-AHM-CX] holding that pre-deposit is mandatory. Further, it is important to note a CONTRARY decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of A. M. Motors vs. UOI [2015-TIOL-1069-HC-Kerala-ST] where the Hon’ble High Court has held that pre-deposit of 7.5% is not mandatory when the case commenced prior to the introduction of the amendment of 2014. Similarly, reference can also be made to the Kerala High Court decision in the case of M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd .[2015-TIOL-632-HC-Kerala-ST] reported in the BCAJ April issue and decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s K. Rama Mohanarao & Co. [2015-TIOL-511-HC-APCX]. Further, in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd vs. State of MP 1983 (13) ELT 1277 (SC), it was held that for the purpose of the accrual of the right of appeal the critical and relevant date is the date of initiation of proceedings and not the decision itself.
