2014 (5) TMI 309 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - business auxiliary services - marketing activities - tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the assessed service tax liability plus the proportionate interest - principle of consistency and binding precedent and uniformity - Held that - in the matters of interlocutory orders, the principle of binding precedents do not apply. - the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lacs as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal which would meet the ends of justice. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Tribunal.
2. Dispute over the pre-deposit amount as a condition for hearing the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Tribunal, challenging the demand of service tax and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The appellant, engaged in the business of non-alcoholic beverages, purchased concentrates from an authorized representative of Coca Cola Company. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax and imposed a penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal (para 1-2).

2. The primary issue in this case was the quantum of pre-deposit required for hearing the appeal. The appellant argued for a waiver of the pre-deposit condition, citing a judgment for consistency and uniformity in judicial discretion. However, the respondent supported the Tribunal's order, considering the pre-deposit amount as reasonable and justified (para 3-4).

3. The Court considered the appellant's reliance on a previous judgment but clarified that the principle of binding precedents does not apply to interlocutory orders. After assessing the facts and circumstances, the Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as a condition for hearing the appeal, stating that it would meet the ends of justice (para 6-8).

4. The Court granted the appellant time until a specified date to make the deposit, emphasizing that the appeal would be heard on merits promptly if the deposit was made as directed. This decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties and ensure a fair hearing of the appeal (para 9-10).