Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the assessee under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, against the order dated April 1, 2014 (annexure A -4) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), claiming the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether bed ridden status of the appellant are reasonable grounds for considering condonation of delay? (b) Whether delay in instant case was unintentional and beyond the control of the appellant? (c) Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi is justified in directing the appellant to make a pre -deposit of entire dues demanded vide order -in -original dated August 2, 2011? (d) Whether one is bound to suffer and miscarriage of justice to prevail especially in extraordinary circumstances when the appellant is bed ridden and in pitiable state of health? (e) Whether the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable - The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant during the period June, 2007 to March, 2009 provided their buses to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (PRTC) on hire basis under kilometer (KM) scheme. The driver was the employee of the appellant and the insurance, repair and maintenance of vehicles were also undertaken by the appellant. The said buses were used by the PRTC for transporting public at specific route and transporting of passengers by public carrier was not liable to service tax during the relevant period. The appellant under bona fide impression that when the main activities were exempted, then the allied activities were also exempt and accordingly, it did not pay service tax. Accordingly, a show -cause notice dated December 14, 2009 (annexure A -1) was issued to the appellant under category of "Rent -a -Cab Scheme Operator Services" demanding service tax of Rs. 4,90,679 (i.e., service tax Rs. 4,76,387 and education cess Rs. 9,528 plus higher secondary education cess Rs. 4,764) along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority vide order dated August 2, 2011 (annexure A -2) confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 4,90,679 along with interest and also imposed penalty. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal on July 18, 2012 before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the appeal was barred by limitation, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed for condonation of eight months and 13 days' delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated October 11, 2012 (annexure A -3) dismissed the appeal being time barred. Still dissatisfied with the order dated October 11, 2012 (annexure A -3), the appellant filed an appeal along with stay application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated April 1, 2014 (annexure A -4) directed the appellant, to deposit the demand of duty within eight weeks and report compliance on June 10, 2014. As the appellant failed to deposit the said demand of duty, the Tribunal vide order dated June 10, 2014 (annexure A -5) dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant challenged the levy of duty before the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the appeal was barred by time, the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated October 11, 2012 (annexure A -3) dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. The appellant challenged the said order -in -appeal and the Tribunal vide order dated April 1, 2014 (annexure A -4) directed the appellant to deposit the demand of duty. Since, the appellant failed to deposit the demand of duty, the Tribunal vide order dated June 10, 2014 dismissed the appeal.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant failed to show any reason for noncompliance of Order dated April 1/2014 (annexure A -4) passed by the Tribunal. In such a situation, from the facts noticed above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.;