PunjabHaryana High Court General Manager Telecom District, Bsnl vs Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 23 September, 2016 STA No. 9 of 2013 [1] AT CHANDIGARH Service Tax Appeal No. 9 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.9.2016 General Manager Telecom District .. Appellant v. The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and others .. Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rajesh Bindal J. 1. The assessee is in appeal against the order dated 25.10.2012, passed by Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. ST/ROA No. 80/2012, ST/Appeal No. 124/2006, raising the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether respondent No. 1 was bound to restore the Appeal No. 124 of 2006 on its original number in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and others, (2001) 3 SCC 404 and hear the appeal on merit ? (ii) Whether the order dated 2.11.2006 passed by Committee on Disputes (COD) amounts to denial of promotion (sick permission) to file appeal ? 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on 02102016 05:19:45 ::: STA No. 9 of 2013 [2] (iii) Whether after passing of the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and others (supra), order dated 2.11.2006 automatically extinguished ? (iv) Whether instructions dated 24.3.2011 issued by Government of India after passing of the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court about COD is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ? (v) Whether the Central Excise Department has the power to claim service tax again from the appellant from April, 2002 to September, 2003 when it has already been deposited in the consolidated fund of India under the Head 0044 ? (vi) Whether the action of the respondentsCentral Excise is without jurisdiction and amounts to malafide exercise of the administrative powers ? (vii) Whether depositing of service tax in the consolidated fund of India directly amounts to irregularity ? (viii) Whether the Central Excise has the authority to demand Service Tax afresh with penalty under Section 76 of the Act when the amount has already been accounted for in the Consolidated Fund of India ? (ix) Whether manifest injustice has been done to the appellant ?" 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that vide Orderin Original dated 8.2.2006, passed by the Commissioner, Central Customs 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on 02102016 05:19:46 ::: STA No. 9 of 2013 [3] Excise, Chandigarh, demand of service tax to the tune of ` 5,54,21,793/ was confirmed against the appellant. It is a case where the dispute is not regarding nonpayment of tax. The amount of tax, in fact, had been deposited by the appellant, but it was deposited directly in the Government treasury and not in the bank designated by the department. The period in question is from October, 2002 to September, 2003. The OrderinOriginal was challenged before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 30.10.2006, the Tribunal noticing the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 (61) ELT 3 (SC), opined that as requisite permission from the Committee on Disputes had not been obtained, the parties were relegated to the Committee on Disputes with liberty to the appellant to get the appeal restored after clearance from the Committee on Disputes. The application filed by the appellant for restoration of the appeal after the decision was taken