Case Details: D.D. Interiors Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi East (2025) 30 Centax 405 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr Rachna Gupta, Member (J) & Mrs Hemambika R. Priya, Member (T)
- Shri Ruchir Bhatia, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Ms Jayakumari, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, engaged in providing taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994, had earlier been issued a demand order confirming liability under Service Tax. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, as required under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. In accordance with the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (made applicable to Service Tax matters via Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994), the appellant submitted that it had deposited the pre-deposit amount partly in 2018 through direct deposit of Service Tax and partly by debiting the Electronic Cash Ledger under the CGST regime.
The CESTAT Registry, however, raised an objection regarding the validity of the pre-deposit made through the Electronic Cash Ledger, treating the appeal as defective.
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble CESTAT held that debit of the Electronic Cash Ledger under the GST regime is not a valid mode of pre-deposit for appeals relating to Service Tax under the earlier regime. It relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in Jyoti Construction [2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 279 (Ori.)] and the Instruction F. No. CBIC-240137/14-2022-S.T., dated 28-10-2022, issued pursuant to the ruling of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 257/ 2022 (382) E.L.T. 476 (Bom.)], which clarified that payments made through Form GST DRC-03 under the CGST framework are not acceptable as pre-deposit under Section 35F.
The Tribunal sustained the Registry’s objection and held that the appellant’s appeal remained defective. However, it allowed the appellant one final opportunity to remove the defect within 30 days and submit valid proof of pre-deposit, following which the matter would be listed in due course.
List of Cases Cited
- Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (365) E.L.T. 813 (Tribunal) — Noted [Paras 3, 7]
- Jyoti Construction v. Deputy Commissioner — 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 279 (Ori.) — Followed [Paras 6, 7]
- Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2022 (382) E.L.T. 476 (Bom.) = 2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 257 (Bom.) — Noted [Paras 4, 7]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 42/16/2018-GST, dated 13-4-2018 [Para 3]
- C.B.I. & C. Instruction F. No. CBIC-240137/14-2022-Service Tax Section-CBEC, dated 28-10-2022 [Paras 4, 8]
