Hotline Display Devices Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Hotline Display Devices Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 14, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43671

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/43671
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: R Abichandani, S T T.V.
Decided On: Sep 14, 2006
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hotline Display Devices Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Excerpt

1. the applicant is aggrieved by the order of commissioner (appeals) made on 29-6-2006 dismissing the appeal on the ground that they had not complied with the interim order dated 10-5-2005 and no pre-deposit was made and hence section 35f was not complied with by them.2. at the instance of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing.3. we have heard the learned authorized representative for the appellant and the learned departmental representative had waded through the case record. it appears from the case record that the appellant has been raising bills and charging from their customers for offering technical consultancy and also technical services rendered by them during the relevant period. it is contradictory to the statement made before us today that they were not providing the services as "consultant engineer".4. we are, therefore, of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit at the level of commissioner (appeals).we, therefore, direct the applicant to deposit 50% (fifty per cent) of the tax as confirmed in the order-in-original within six weeks from today and on such amount being deposited within the time prescribed, the appeal shall stand remanded to the commissioner (appeals) for hearing it afresh on merits. in case the amount of pre-deposit is not made by the applicant as directed, the appeal will stand dismissed automatically.

Full Judgment

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 29-6-2006 dismissing the appeal on the ground that they had not complied with the Interim Order dated 10-5-2005 and no pre-deposit was made and hence Section 35F was not complied with by them.

2. At the instance of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing.

3. We have heard the learned Authorized Representative for the appellant and the Learned Departmental Representative had waded through the case record. It appears from the case record that the appellant has been raising bills and charging from their customers for offering technical consultancy and also technical services rendered by them during the relevant period. It is contradictory to the statement made before us today that they were not providing the services as "consultant engineer".

4. We are, therefore, of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit at the level of Commissioner (Appeals).

We, therefore, direct the applicant to deposit 50% (fifty per cent) of the tax as confirmed in the order-in-original within six weeks from today and on such amount being deposited within the time prescribed, the appeal shall stand remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing it afresh on merits. In case the amount of pre-deposit is not made by the applicant as directed, the appeal will stand dismissed automatically.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Hotline Display Devices Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge R Abichandani, S T T.V.