9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2014 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. Radhika Chandrasekar For the Respondents : Mr. M. Santhanaraman - R1 JUDGMENT (Delivered by R. Sudhakar,J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.06.2014. 2. The appellant was providing various services on behalf of Malayasian Airlines in connection with transportation of Air Cargo including issue of Air Way bills. During the verification of the sales records, it was noticed that the appellant had not discharged the service tax liability to the tune of ₹ 1,60,82,229/-. Hence, a show cause notice dated 29.7.2010 was issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the advocate, there were other elements like, CHA service, ocean freight service etc. involved. Therefore the facts are not identical. The decision of Excel India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is prima facie more applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, we direct the applicant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the tax demanded within 8 weeks and report compliance on 18.11.2013. subject to such deposit, pre-deposit of balance dues arising from the impugned order is waived for admission of appeal and there shall be stay on collection of such dues during pendency of the appeal. 4. The Tribunal, however, noticed, that insofar as the present case is concerned, there was a plea for waiver of pre-deposit on the ground that there was financial cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce in the plea of the appellant regarding undue hardship and financial difficulty in pursuing the appeal on payment of the pre-deposit as ordered by the Tribunal. The same, therefore, requires to be modified considering the prima facie case of the appellant. 8. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE, (2006) 13 SCC 347, wherein it has been held as under: 8. It is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no legs to stand on, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vied: Provided that where in any particular case, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal, may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of the Revenue: Provided further that where an application is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for dispensing with the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied under the first proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue. This is an aspect which the Tribunal has to bring into focus. It is for the Tribunal to impose such conditions as are deemed proper to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal while dealing with the application has to consider materials to be placed by the assessee relating to undue hardship and also to stipulate conditions as required to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following order: (i) The order of the Tribunal dated 10.6.2014 is modified to the effect that the appellant shall make a pre-deposit of ₹ 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) less the amount already deposited, if any, towards pre-deposit on or before 12.12.2014 and subject to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
