2015 (11) TMI 1165 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Activity of retreading of tyres of motor vehicles - Manufacture or not - Held that - Appellant had produced four demand drafts bearing Nos. 210382 and 210384 to 210386, all dated 2.5.2014, totalling ₹ 19,00,000/- which were ordered to be kept with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court vide order dated May 6, 2014. It was also submitted that a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- was deposited on 28.1.2013 - The original drafts be handed over to learned counsel for respondent No.3 who shall forward the same to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Division, The Mall, Amritsar (respondent No.3) who shall be entitled to encash the same - appeals be heard without insisting for pre-deposit of penalty amount - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to deposit the entire demand as a pre-condition to hear the case on merits?
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the pre-deposit waiver application of the appellant and deciding it ex-parte without giving opportunity of hearing?

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a bunch of four appeals with identical issues. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appellant, engaged in retreading old tires, was issued a show cause notice for recovery of service tax. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for waiver of pre-deposit and directed the appellant to deposit the entire demand, prompting the present appeal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had required the deposit of the entire amount of demand in all four appeals, totaling Rs. 38,36,090. The appellant had already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and produced additional demand drafts amounting to Rs. 19,00,000.

3. The High Court modified the Tribunal's order regarding pre-deposit and directed that the appeals be heard without insisting on the pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the appeals. With this modification, the appeals were disposed of accordingly, providing relief to the appellant regarding the pre-deposit requirement imposed by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, the background of the case, the arguments presented by the appellant, and the final decision and modification made by the High Court.