2014 (5) TMI 1022 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Quantum of deposit - Held that - primary dispute that arises for consideration in this appeal relates to the quantum of pre-deposit to be made by the appellant as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal requiring the appellant to deposit Rs. 5 lacs as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal appears to be just and reasonable. we do not find any reason to reduce the quantum of amount to be deposited as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal - No substantial question of law arises - However, time period to make pre deposit is extended.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against a Tribunal order requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lacs for hearing.
2. Dispute regarding the reasonableness of the pre-deposit amount.
3. Consideration of substantial questions of law in the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against a Tribunal order directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lacs for hearing. The appellant received old LPG cylinders from Indian Oil Corporation for repair and maintenance, along with construction activities at the LPG Bottling Plant. A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax for various services provided without proper registration. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was partly allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Tribunal, which upheld the pre-deposit requirement of Rs. 5 lacs for hearing the appeal.

2. The primary dispute revolved around the reasonableness of the pre-deposit amount. The appellant argued that the requirement of Rs. 5 lacs was unreasonable and excessive. However, after considering the submissions, the Court found the amount to be just and reasonable based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no justification to reduce the pre-deposit amount for hearing the appeal.

3. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. Despite the dismissal, the appellant's counsel requested an extension of time for the pre-deposit. In the interest of justice, the Court granted an extension until a specified date for the appellant to deposit the required amount. It was directed that if the appellant complied with the pre-deposit by the given date, the appeal would be heard on merits in accordance with the law.

This judgment highlights the importance of pre-deposit requirements in appeals under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the need for appellants to comply with such conditions for the hearing of their appeals.