TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made for the period 2003-2007 and the payments that were already made by the petitioner. Thus adopting a reasonable approach, the pre-deposit was restricted to ₹ 25 Crores which in fact is less than 1/3 rd of the total demand of Service Tax and Education Cess. The petitioner's request for modification of the said order was rejected assigning valid reasons therefor - condition of pre-deposit of ₹ 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 - Decided against assessee. - WRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hardship while disposing the stay application (2011-TIOL-147-HC-AP-ST). In pursuance thereof, the CESTAT passed a fresh order dated 18.04.2011 (2011-TIOL-661-CESTAT-BANG) maintaining the full waiver of pre-deposit granted to the petitioner and staying the recovery till the disposal of the appeal. The said order was again questioned by the Department before this Court by filing a writ petition. By order dated 19.10.2011 (2011-TIOL-694-HC-AP-ST) this Court set aside the order of the CESTAT and directed that the petitioner should deposit 1/3 rd of the total demand of Service Tax, cess and penalties to the tune of about ₹ 80 Crores. The petitioner carried the matter to the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition and the same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it a sum of ₹ 25 Crores within eight weeks subject to which there would be waiver and stay in respect of the balance tax including penalties and interest on Service Tax and Education Cesses. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No.27138 of 2013 seeking modification of the order dated 05.04.2013 and to grant unconditional stay. The said application was disposed of by the CESTAT by order dated 15.07.2013 holding that no case was made out for modification (2013-TIOL-1376-CESTAT-BANG). However, the petitioner was granted further time of eight weeks for making the pre-deposit as directed in the order dated 05.04.2013. The said order of the CESTAT, dated 15.07.2013 is assailed in the present writ petition contending inter al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Central Excise contending that the pre-deposit of duty demanded being a mandatory statutory condition, there cannot be full waiver and therefore the CESTAT is justified in declining to modify the conditional order passed earlier. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel, we do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the impugned order suffered from any error of fact or law warranting interference by this Court. As per the first proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, pre-deposit of the duty demanded or penalty levied can be waived where the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that such deposit would cause undue hardship to the applicant. As we could see, the Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
