Pre-deposit order upheld where cited waiver precedent did not match the facts of the restored service tax appeal.

A pre-deposit direction in a pending service tax appeal was not recalled because the cited waiver precedents arose on materially different facts. The Tribunal held that the earlier decisions did not govern a case where the assessee had not made the pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the matter had been restored for de novo consideration. As no error was shown in the stay direction, review was refused and the deposit requirement remained operative, with the appeal liable to rejection if the stipulated deposit and compliance report were not filed within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs in the pending service tax appeal called for review or recall on the basis of the decision in Super Tyres Ltd. and the Tribunal order in Hotline Display Devices Ltd.

Analysis: The earlier and cited authorities were examined only to test whether they governed the present facts. The cited Delhi High Court decision turned on a materially different situation where the same demand had been reiterated after an earlier deposit and remand, whereas in the present matter the assessee had not made the pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the matter had been restored for consideration de novo. On that factual matrix, the impugned stay direction was not shown to be contrary to the earlier precedent. The application for review therefore disclosed no error warranting interference.

Conclusion: The request to recall or review the stay order was rejected, and the direction to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application failed, the pre-deposit direction remained operative, and the appeal would stand rejected if the stipulated deposit and compliance report were not filed within time.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit order will not be recalled merely because of another decision on waiver where the governing factual matrix is materially different; interference is justified only when the prior precedent squarely applies.

---