AMBIENCE CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA LTD. Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order-in-Original No. 18/2010-S.T., dtd. 30/3/2010 was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, holding M/s. Ambience Constructions India Limited (hereinafter, 'the appellant company') liable to pay Rs.74,16,923.00 towards Service Tax, along with interest and penalties. This order was subjected to appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter, 'the Appellate Tribunal'), by the appellant company in ST Appeal No. 1745 of 2010. Stay Application No. 1026 of 2010 was filed therein by the appellant company seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further proceedings pursuant to the Order-in-Original dtd. 30/3/2010.

(2.) By order dtd. 10/7/2013 [294 (36) S.T.R. 353 (Tri.-Bang.)], the Appellate Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Order-in-Original, subject to the condition that the appellant company remitted 50% of the assessed tax liability plus the proportionate interest thereon, excluding the components of penalty under Ss. 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, within eight weeks from that day. The matter was directed to be listed on 30/9/2013 for reporting compliance. The Appellate Tribunal also made it clear that in the event of default in making the deposit within the time stipulated, the stay granted would stand dissolved without further reference to it. The order also recorded that the counsel for the appellant company was present to note the order and thereby, sufficient intimation was given to it of its obligations thereunder.

(3.) Aggrieved by the conditions imposed, the appellant company filed CEA No. 39 of 2013 before this Court under Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1944'). This appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court comprising the then Hon'ble The Chief Justice and one of us, on 5/12/2013. The Division Bench opined that technical undue hardship had been established, whereupon the Appellate Tribunal had granted part-relief. However, keeping in mind that the Appellate Tribunal had itself observed that the question of limitation had to be gone into, the Division Bench found that true hardship would be caused to the appellant company if it had to pay the interest component. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was accordingly modified by waiving the interest component in full but retaining the rest of the order as it was. However, waiver of the interest component was subject to the condition that the appellant company executed a bond covering 50% of the said interest component within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This bond was to be executed by the appellant company in favour of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-II, binding itself to pay the said interest amount.