Pre-deposit refused where demand was prima facie supported and claimed job-work exemption did not apply to the activities.

Delay of 33 days in filing the appeal was condoned because the explanation based on injuries from an accidental motorbike fall was accepted as satisfactory. Interim relief was refused because the appellant had been given sufficient opportunity to contest the proceedings, the plea of violation of natural justice failed, and the demand was prima facie supported by books of account and invoices. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST was held inapplicable to shifting of raw material and housekeeping activities, which were not treated as job work on client-supplied materials. In the absence of pleaded financial hardship, full pre-deposit of the confirmed amount was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal should be condoned; (ii) whether the appellant had made out a case for stay and waiver of pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was explained as having occurred due to injuries sustained in an accidental fall from a motorbike. The explanation was accepted as satisfactory.

Conclusion: Delay condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had made out a case for stay and waiver of pre-deposit.

Analysis: The appellant was found to have been given sufficient opportunities to contest the proceedings, and the plea of violation of natural justice was rejected. The order also noted the appellant's admission of non-payment of service tax during the relevant period and found prima facie support for the demand from the books of accounts and invoices. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST was held inapplicable because shifting of raw material and housekeeping activities were not treated as job work on materials supplied by clients. No financial hardship was pleaded.

Conclusion: No case for stay or waiver of pre-deposit was made out, and the appellant was directed to pre-deposit the entire confirmed amount.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were disposed of by condoning the delay while declining interim relief and requiring full pre-deposit as a condition for further continuation of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea for interim protection against recovery fails where sufficient opportunity to defend has been afforded, the demand is prima facie supported by records, and the claimed exemption does not cover the activity in question.

---