High Court quashes dismissal, grants deposit opportunity. Tribunal to review appeal post deposit. Compliance stressed.

The High Court of Bombay quashed the order dismissing the appeal and granted the appellant the opportunity to deposit the balance Service Tax amount within a specified period. The Court directed the Tribunal to review the appeal on its merits after the deposit. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the Tribunal's directions and highlighted the lack of binding precedent from a previous judgment cited by the appellant.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to the order of dismissal of appeal passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the order passed by the Tribunal on 14-5-2012 regarding the deposit of Service Tax amount.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Pre-deposit of Service Tax Amount:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the direction given by the Appellate Tribunal to the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the Service Tax amount. The appellant contested this direction citing a judgment in a similar case where a different approach was taken. The appellant relied on the judgment in the matter of M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India to argue that the Tribunal should apply consistent criteria for pre-deposit in similar circumstances. The respondent, however, argued that the appellant had accepted the order to deposit the amount and only challenged it after the appeal was dismissed. The respondent also pointed out that the judgment cited by the appellant had not been approved by two Division Benches. The Court analyzed these arguments along with the reference to a judgment in the matter of Orange City Alloys Private Limited and Others v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, and concluded that the appellant was liable to comply with the directions of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the deposit of the Service Tax amount.

2. Judicial Interpretation and Precedent:
The Court delved into the judicial interpretations and precedents related to the issue of pre-deposit of Service Tax amount. It discussed the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. and the subsequent Larger Bench judgment that confirmed the view adopted by the Division Bench. The Court held that the decision of the Aurangabad Bench could not be treated as a precedent, and the Division Bench was not bound by it. This analysis provided the legal framework within which the Court made its decision regarding the pre-deposit of the Service Tax amount in the present case.

3. Court's Decision and Directions:
Based on the analysis of the arguments presented by both parties and the legal precedents discussed, the Court decided to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal. The Court granted the appellant further opportunity to deposit the balance amount with the Appellate Tribunal within a specified period. It directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on its own merit and in accordance with the law after the deposit was made. The Court also clarified that there would be no order as to costs in the given circumstances.

In conclusion, the judgment of the High Court of Bombay addressed the issue of pre-deposit of Service Tax amount in light of legal precedents and arguments presented by the parties, ultimately providing a detailed analysis and decision on the matter.

---