TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above submissions made by the petitioner, he shall pay the pre-deposit amount as ordered by the respondent in the impugned order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on such payment, the respondent shall dispose of the appeal itself, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. - W. P. No. 4526 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2013 - V. Dhanapalan,J. For the Petitioner : Mr. V. S. Manoj for M/s. K. Vaitheeswaran For the Respondent : Mr. M. Santhanaraman, SCGSC ORDER Heard Mr.V.S. Manoj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent and vide Pre-Deposit-cum-Appeal Order Nos. 163 and 164/2013(M-ST (PD)) in A.No.432/20112 (M-ST) and 627/2012 (MST), dated 07.02.2013, the respondent ordered pre-deposit of ₹ 25 lakhs to be paid in cash on or before 28.02.2013 and also observed that if the pre-deposit is not paid, the subject appeal would stand dismissed automatically. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed for the above relief. 4. The main focus of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed the appeal along with stay petition against the order of confirmation of the impugned demand passed by the original authority towards Service Tax under Erection, Commissioning or Installation service, with in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs to be paid in cash on or before 28.02.2013 under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, made applicable to service tax as per Section 83 of the Finance Act and the balance was waived. It was also observed in the impugned order that if the pre-deposit is not paid as ordered, the subject appeal would stand dismissed automatically. 7. Law is well settled that the capacity of a party to pay the pre-deposit amount had to be noticed and the financial burden and undue hardship for the party to resort to claim waiver of the pre-deposit, have also to be considered. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (235) ELT 231 (Trendy Moods Vs. Customs, Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
