9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Commercial Taxes, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why Service Tax should not be collected as provided under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 on the income received by the petitioner for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2007 under the head of "Commercial Training or Coaching Services". After considering the petitioner's explanation, the respondent herein the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Guntur passed the Order in Original dated 11.06.2009 confirming the demand made in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the CESTAT, Bangalore. The said Appeal No. 301 of 2010 was admitted and unconditional stay of pre-deposit was granted by the CEST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner were not accepted and the respondent passed the Order in Original dated 30.03.2012 confirming the demand of Rs. 63,06,14,433/- for the period 2007-08 to 2009-10. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CESTAT along with an application for stay. Again for the year 2010-11 the petitioner was called upon to pay the Service Tax together with interest and penalty by notice dated 18.10.2011 followed by the Order in Original dated 13.07.2012 whereunder the Service Tax liability was determined as Rs. 13,04,69,118/-. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the CESTAT along with an application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit. The applications for stay filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eiterating the said contention, it is further submitted by Sri S. Ravi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that as the petitioner has already paid about Rs. 89 Lakhs towards the Service Tax levied for the year 2010-11 on the fee collected from non-Intermediate students and moreover security of properties worth about Rs. 50 Crores has also been furnished, the interest of the Revenue is secured and therefore the conditional order is not warranted. The further submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the Order in Original, dated 11.6.2009 in which the very same issues are involved has already been slated for hearing on 28.10.2013, it would be appropriate to hear these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons therefor. On a perusal of the Order, dated 5.4.2003 and the impugned order dated 15.07.2013, we are of the opinion that the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 25 Crores was imposed on proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Appellate Tribunal and on proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the impugned order which cannot be treated either arbitrary or irrational, warrants no interference by us on any ground whatsoever. However, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to remit the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 25 Crores in two instalments, the first instalment of Rs. 15 Crores payable on or before 4.10.2013 and the balance of Rs. 10 Crores on or before 4.11.2013. Writ Petition is accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
