2015 (10) TMI 632 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of Pre-deposit Services rendered for erection of telecommunication towers and repair and maintenance of existing towers for various telecommunication companies - Dispute arises with regards to the quantum of pre-deposit - Appellant contended that pre-deposit as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unfair and excessive, still deposited some amount Revenue held amount as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was reasonable and justified - Held That - appellant has already deposited a sum of ₹ 5 lacs - Ends of justice would be met if the Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting for pre-deposit of the remaining amount Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944
- Dispute over pre-deposit amount for hearing the appeal by the Tribunal

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against orders passed by the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, engaged in erection of telecommunication towers, was investigated for non-filing of ST-3 returns. The Government issued notifications exempting taxable services and providing abatement. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of service tax, to which the appellant replied. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the service tax, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) imposed a pre-deposit condition of Rs. 10,00,000, which the appellant failed to meet, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the pre-deposit amount was unfair and excessive, having deposited Rs. 5,00,000 as per a court order. The revenue's counsel contended that the amount directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was reasonable. The main issue revolved around the quantum of pre-deposit required for the Tribunal to hear the appeal. Considering the facts and the appellant's deposit of Rs. 5,00,000, it was deemed just to direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to proceed with the appeal on merits without insisting on the remaining pre-deposit amount.

3. The High Court, after hearing both counsels, concluded that justice would be served by allowing the appeal to be heard on merits without the necessity of the appellant making the full pre-deposit amount. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the direction for the Commissioner (Appeals) to proceed with the appeal without insisting on the remaining pre-deposit.