Tribunal order upheld with partial payment, petitioner directed to make additional deposit for appeal resolution. Financial constraints considered.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for the period after 19-4-2006, considering financial constraints and previous payments. The Court, satisfied with the petitioner's case and partial payment, instructed an additional deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- within three weeks for prompt resolution of the appeal. An extension of ten days was granted for compliance due to a delay in receiving the order copy, effectively concluding the matter.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order in Application No. ST/S/100/09 in ST/169/09 dated 5-8-2009 [2010 (19) S.T.R. 728 (Tribunal)].
2. Levy of service tax for the period from 1999 to 2004.
3. Show cause notice for the period from October, 2001 to September, 2006.
4. Order demanding tax for the period from October, 2005 to 18-4-2006 and imposing penalty.
5. Dispute regarding pre-deposit amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs.
6. Application for waiver based on Gujarat High Court decision.
7. Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit of Rs. 10.00 lakhs.
8. Counter filed by the respondents justifying the Tribunal's order.
9. Petitioner's plea for waiver of the balance amount payable under the demand.
10. Court's direction to deposit further sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order related to Application No. ST/S/100/09 in ST/169/09 dated 5-8-2009 [2010 (19) S.T.R. 728 (Tribunal)], which was an appeal before the CESTAT under the Service Tax Regulations. The petitioner, engaged in civil engineering and allied consultancy services, faced a show cause notice for service tax levy from 1999 to 2004, which was confirmed. Subsequent notices for the period from October, 2001 to September, 2006 led to penalties and demands. The petitioner appealed against these orders, leading to remands and further demands.

2. The petitioner's grievance centered around the Tribunal's order directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 10.00 lakhs without considering the case thoroughly. The petitioner argued for waiver based on a Gujarat High Court decision, emphasizing that the taxable event occurred upon service execution, not invoice receipt. The petitioner had already paid a significant sum, seeking a waiver for the remaining amount.

3. The Tribunal's order, dated 5-8-2009, addressed the pre-deposit issue differently for periods before and after 19-4-2006. It required the petitioner to pay Rs. 10.00 lakhs for the subsequent period, considering financial difficulties and previous payments. The respondents defended the Tribunal's decision, citing financial hardship and the need for compliance. The Court, satisfied with the prima facie case and payment made, directed the petitioner to deposit an additional Rs. 5,00,000/- within three weeks for expeditious appeal resolution.

4. The Court later allowed the petitioner ten more days to comply with the deposit order due to a delay in receiving the order copy. This extension aimed to ensure the petitioner's adherence to the payment directive issued on 7-12-2009, concluding the matter effectively.

---