- (1.) HEARD Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, assailing the order dated 10 -6 -2013, passed on an application for modification of stay order bearing Service Tax Misc. Application No. 56359 of 2013 in Service Tax Appeal No. 3998 of 2012.
(2.) THE short controversy involved in this appeal is with regard to the condition of pre -deposit for hearing the appeal by the Tribunal and rejection of appeal for non -compliance of order for pre -deposit. Undisputed facts are that Service Tax has been levied upon the appellant and being aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority along with an application for waiver of the amount of tax levied. On the date, when the application for interim relief for waiver was fixed, nobody responded on behalf of the appellant and as such, the Tribunal proceeded and after perusal of the record and hearing the Departmental representative, rejected the application for waiver by means of order dated 10 -6 -2013 and directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 39,00,000/ - within seven days after receipt of the order and make compliance of the order dated 25 -2 -2013. As the aforesaid order was passed in absence of the appellant, an application dated 1 -1 -2013 for modification was preferred, which was heard by a Bench comprising of the President of the Tribunal along with Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) and the said Bench rejected the application vide order dated 10 -6 -2013 and directed the appellant to make compliance of the orders dated 1 -1 -2013 by 26 -6 -2013. By the order dated 25 -6 -2013, the appeal was rejected in terms of the order dated 10 -6 -2013.
(3.) BEING aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed inter alia on the following substantial questions of law: - (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified to deal with the application for modification of the order dated 1 -1 -2013 without listing the same before the Hon'ble Bench who passed the order dated 1 -1 -2013? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Misc. Application holding that the Modification Application is in the nature of an application seeking review of the order dated 1 -1 -2013 on merits. We find no authority for review of the order dated 1 -1 -2013. In spite of the fact that the modification of the order has been sought on account of the non -consideration of the facts of the case and the grounds taken in support of the stay cum waiver application? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact that the stay cum waiver application was listed for hearing for the first time on 1 -1 -2013 and the counsel could not appear as his train was late by six hours which was beyond his control and the fact was conveyed to the Hon'ble Bench during the course of hearing of the Misc. Application for modification of the order dated 1 -1 -2013?;