2015 (6) TMI 1046 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the Hon ble Tribunal has followed the directions given by the Hon ble A.P. High Court and the directions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in ordering pre-deposit of 6.00 crores which is much below the 1/3rd of service tax demand - Held that - the Tribunal had made a reasoned order after taking into consideration the facts presented before it. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has the discretion and power to grant waiver. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion after taking into consideration the facts on record. With regard to the question which has been framed for consideration by this Court as stated supra the earlier orders being not precedents there is no irregularity committed by the Tribunal in not adhering to its earlier orders. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order directing pre-deposit pending appeal consideration.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directing the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 6.00 crores as pre-deposit pending appeal consideration. The primary contention raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal did not follow the directions given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court in previous orders regarding the pre-deposit amount. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have required 1/3rd of the service tax demand to be deposited as pre-deposit, as directed by the Apex Court in a previous order. However, the Tribunal exercised its discretion and directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 6.00 crores within a specified time frame, considering the facts and submissions presented before it.

The impugned order pertains to a service tax demand of Rs. 33,97,36,617/- for the period 2011-2012, along with interest and penalties. The respondent, challenging the Commissioner's order, filed an appeal and sought a waiver of pre-deposit pending adjudication. The respondent contended that they were not solely running a commercial training or coaching center but also an educational institution providing regular intermediate courses. The issue of what constitutes commercial training or coaching was still pending a detailed consideration by a third member due to a difference of opinion. The Tribunal considered detailed submissions regarding the components of the fee charged by the respondent, including lab fees, internal exam fees, and other charges. After thorough consideration, the Tribunal directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 6.00 crores and report compliance within a specified timeframe, waiving the pre-deposit of the balance dues and granting a stay against recovery.

The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the submissions and facts presented before it. The Tribunal exercised its discretion in granting the waiver after considering the specific circumstances of the case. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal has the authority to grant waivers and that its decisions are not bound by previous orders that do not establish legal precedents. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the facts presented, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. Any interim orders passed were deemed infructuous following the dismissal of the appeal.