PRASPACK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI S.R. Dixit, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is a sub -contractor and the service tax for the services rendered by the appellant has already been paid by the main contractor. However, he submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal for their failure to make a pre -deposit of entire dues as per the stay order and their modification application has also been rejected.

(2.) TAKING note of the claim by the learned Advocate that the service tax has already been paid by the main contractor and payment by the sub -contractor again would amount to double payment of service tax for the same service and also taking note of the fact that the appeal has been rejected for not depositing all the dues as per the stay order and not on merit, we feel that in this case, there was no need for the Commissioner (Appeals) to require the appellant to deposit the entire amount of dues in view of the claim that the demand would amount to double payment of service tax. We, therefore, allow the stay petition unconditionally. Further, in view of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the case on merit, we remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merit, without insisting on any pre -deposit.

(3.) STAY petition as also appeal get disposed of in above manner.