ANAND CINE SERVICE Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is engaged in the business of supplying equipment for cinematography on hire basis to various agencies and those agencies pay hire charges to the appellant. When the new entry 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994, for taxing 'supply of tangible goods' was brought into force, the appellant herein also got itself registered for payment of service tax and according to him, they are paying service tax regularly. The Service Tax Authorities felt that for the period prior to 16-5-2008 also, the service provided by the appellant was covered by the definition of Photographic Service and consequently taxable under the entries 65(105)(zb) read with 65(78) and 65(79) and based on the same, two show cause notices for the period from 1-10-2003 to 31-12-2007 and for the period from 1-1-2008 to 31-12-2008 were issued and after adjudication, demands for tax amounting to Rs. 4,93,97,689/- and Rs. 2,02,83,714/- respectively have been confirmed against the appellant along with interest and penalties by means of a common adjudication order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had filed an appeal before the CESTAT and arguments were advanced on the merits of the case. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the Department Representative appearing for the Revenue felt that the issue requires a detailed examination at the time of final hearing and taking into consideration of the factual and legal position, directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 70.00 lakhs for admission of appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of the order, namely, 26-8-2013 and upon such deposit, the Tribunal waived the balance amount arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal and also granted stay on collection of dues during the pendency of the appeal and directed the matter to be listed on 17-11-2013 for reporting compliance.

(2.) The appellant, aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 26-8-2013, has filed C.M.A. No. 520 of 2014 and this Court, while entertaining the appeal on 21-2-2014, has formulated the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) The Tribunal has listed the matter for reporting compliance of its earlier order dated 26-8-2013 on 21-3-2014 and when the matter was called on 21-3-2014, the appellant has filed a memorandum before the Tribunal stating among other things that C.M.A. No. 520 of 2014 preferred against the earlier order dated 26-8-2013 has been entertained by this Court on 21-2-2014 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue also took notice and sought time to get instructions and the appeal was directed to be listed on 4-3-2014 and therefore prayed for extension of time by four weeks for reporting compliance.