AVTAR & COMPANY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE of hearing of this application was received and a memorandum of written submissions, filed on behalf of the petitioner's consultant was received on 14 -8 -2013. The application seeks review of the Stay Order No. SO/1319/2012 -CU (DB), dated 12 -12 -2012. By this order, the petitioner/appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within four weeks and report compliance by 25 -2 -2013. On 18 -2 -2013, the Registry noted that the amount as directed was not deposited nor any proof of compliance filed. On 24 -7 -2013 the matter was placed before the Bench for recording compliance. We noted that a letter dated 23 -7 -2013 addressed by the counsel of the petitioner was on record seeking adjournment on the ground of the counsel's ill -health, accompanied by a medical certificate. Therefore, the miscellaneous application was adjourned to this date. The Tribunal also observed that since the pre -deposit direction was not complied with, the appeal stands rejected for failure of pre -deposit.

(2.) THIS miscellaneous application is essentially substance for review of the interim order dated 12 -12 -2012 (directing pre -deposit) and is filed under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a provision applicable to proceeding before this Tribunal in relation to adjudication of Service Tax dispute as well. Section 35C set out the procedures to be followed in adjudication of disputes presented. Sub -section (1) of Section 35C enacts that this Tribunal after affording an opportunity may pass an appropriate order confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against. Sub -section (1A) enables adjourning the hearing of an appeal; and sub -section (2) enacts that the Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub -section (1) and shall make amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by Revenue or the assessee, as the case may be.

(3.) THE memorandum of written submission refers to various judgments to contend that the petitioner/appellant is not liable to the levy or collection of Service Tax under cargo handling service. Since we discern no power, authority or jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order dated 12 -12 -2013, we dismiss the application.