JAIPRAKASH STRIPS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the CESTAT was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant - assessee for non-compliance of pre-deposit order, is the question of law raised in this appeal. During the years 1999-2000 to 2002-2003 the assessee had received Rs. 19,31,10,857/- as commission from eighteen parties. According to the assessee, the amounts received by them were for procuring orders on behalf of their principals which did not constitute taxable service and hence were not liable to pay service tax.

(2.) By Show-Cause Notice dated 1st July, 2004 the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Division-IV, Nasik called upon the assessee to show cause as to why service tax amounting to Rs. 96,55,542/- should not be recovered from the assessee under Section 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the services rendered during the period from 1999-2000 to 2002-03. The assessee filed its reply opposing the claim of the revenue set out in the said show-cause notice. However, by an order in original No. 2/ST/2006 dated 28th August, 2006 the duty demand was confirmed. On appeal preferred by the assessee, the CESTAT vide its order dated 18th April, 2007 had set aside the adjudication order in the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, 2006 4 STT 231 (New Delhi - CESTAT) and remanded the matter. On remand the matter was heard afresh and by adjudication order dated 29th March, 2008 the Commissioner for Central Excise confirmed the demand for Rs. 91,07,006/- and also imposed penalty on the assessee.

(3.) Challenging the order-in-original dated 29th March, 2008 the assessee filed an appeal before the CESTAT. The Tribunal by its order dated 10th February, 2009 directed the assessee to make pre-deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- for entertaining the appeal. The assessee thereafter filed Modification Application. By an order dated 12th August, 2009 the said application was rejected by the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the pre-deposit order has not been complied with.