Appeal dismissed due to non-compliance with deposit requirement. Partial duty waiver granted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the applicant's non-compliance with the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The applicant sought waiver of duty, interest, and penalty related to the denial of credit for service tax on the rent of a job worker's premises. The Tribunal found the job worker to be an independent manufacturer, leading to a partial waiver of duty with the applicant directed to deposit 25% of the duty within six weeks, and the remaining dues waived upon compliance. Recovery was stayed until the specified date.

---

---

Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty
- Denial of credit for service tax paid on rent of job worker's premises
- Appeal dismissed for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act
- Applicant's contention regarding job worker's activity and credit availed
- Revenue's argument on job worker's independence and duty liability
- Tribunal's analysis of applicant's case and reliance on previous decisions

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs.13,80,649/- due to the denial of credit for service tax paid on the rent of the job worker's premises. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) where the applicant was directed to deposit 50% of the duty and penalty. However, the applicant's failure to comply resulted in the appeal being dismissed for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.

The applicant argued that the job worker's activity was related to manufacturing, allowing for credit on the rent paid for the job worker's premises. Citing the Coca Cola case and a Tribunal decision, the applicant contended that the rent payment and credit availed were part of their business activity. On the other hand, the revenue contended that the job worker was an independent manufacturer, making the service tax paid on the job worker's premises ineligible for credit, leading to the confirmation of the demand.

The Tribunal observed that the job worker was an independent manufacturer not paying duty under Notification 214/86, and the premises where rent was paid were not part of the applicant's manufacturing unit. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a case for a total waiver of duty. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit 25% of the duty within six weeks, with the remaining dues waived upon compliance, and recovery stayed until the specified date.

---