CESTAT confirms Rs. 11.7 Cr service tax demand; Predeposit order issued with strict deadline

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 11,73,95,057/- with interest and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax. Despite the appellant's claims of errors in computation and financial hardship, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a predeposit of the confirmed service tax demand, excluding the amount already paid, within eight weeks. Failure to comply could result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice, emphasizing the significance of adhering to the predeposit order to avoid adverse consequences.

---

---

Issues: Service tax demand confirmation, errors in computation, financial hardship plea, predeposit requirement, waiver of penalty

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved the confirmation of a service tax demand of Rs. 11,73,95,057/- with interest and penalties by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax. The appellant challenged the demand, claiming errors in computation and financial hardship. The appellant argued that the Department made gross errors and that the amount already paid should be considered sufficient, urging for a waiver of the balance dues. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant failed to point out errors or attend hearings, and thus, a prima facie case for a stay was not made. The Tribunal noted the lack of detailed replies from the appellant and their non-cooperation during hearings. Despite the appellant's financial hardship plea supported by financial documents, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a predeposit of the entire confirmed service tax demand, excluding the amount already paid, within eight weeks. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date, failing which the appeal could be dismissed without further notice. Financial hardship was considered only for waiving penalties, not the service tax dues. The predeposit of the balance amount would result in the waiver of penalties and a stay on recovery during the appeal's pendency. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with the predeposit order to avoid dismissal of the appeal.

---