M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, Bhubaneswar

Held

The Court set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 17.09.2025. The reasoning was that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit, despite the petitioner's claim that the pre-deposit had been made on 30.08.2024. The Court found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to verify the amount deposited towards pre-deposit. If the deposit was found to be correct, the appeal was to be heard and disposed of in accordance with law, subject to the satisfaction of other statutory requirements. The issue regarding the 60% abatement was implicitly left to be considered by the appellate authority upon restoration of the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ishwar Chandra Barik, challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), GST, Central Excise & Customs. The appeal was dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit. The petitioner contended that the pre-deposit of Rs.1,24,125/- (7.5% of the disputed tax of Rs.16,54,964/-) was made on 30.08.2024, prior to the dismissal order. The petitioner also argued that they were entitled to a 60% abatement under the Valuation Rules for works contract service provided to M/s. TATA Steel Ltd., which was not considered. The Order-in-Original dated 01.07.2024, which demanded tax, interest, and penalty, was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Keonjhar Division.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Appeal dated 17.09.2025, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of non-payment of pre-deposit, is legally sustainable, given the petitioner's assertion of having made the pre-deposit on 30.08.2024? (Question of fact and law, turning on the factual correctness of pre-deposit payment and the procedural validity of the appellate order). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of 60% abatement under the Valuation Rules for works contract service provided to M/s. TATA Steel Ltd.? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation and application of Valuation Rules). Petitioner's arguments: The pre-deposit was made on 30.08.2024, rendering the appellate authority's dismissal order erroneous. The petitioner also argued that the 60% abatement under the Valuation Rules was wrongly denied. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that there was no illegality in the impugned order and suggested that if the pre-deposit was indeed made, the authority concerned should be directed to consider it and pass an appropriate order.