Court dismisses Appeals, upholds Rs. 45 lakh pre-deposit. Financial hardship claim lacks evidence. Compliance extended, matters closed.

The Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decision directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 45 lakhs within eight weeks. The Court found the appellant's argument of financial hardship lacking sufficient evidence beyond a general statement, leading to the rejection of the request for interference with the Tribunal's order. Compliance with the pre-deposit was extended by eight weeks, with the connected matters closed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Stay of recovery and waiver of pre-deposit in service tax demand.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Miscellaneous Order confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1,59,83,866 for the period from May 2006 to September 2009 and Rs. 72,66,757 for the period from October 2009 to June 2010, along with interest and penalties. The appellant sought stay of recovery and waiver of pre-deposit.

2. The application for stay/waiver of pre-deposit was extensively detailed, with the appellant reproducing the grounds of appeal in the application. The Tribunal noted the lack of specific averments regarding financial hardship, except for a general statement about facing financial difficulties.

3. The Tribunal considered the appellant's arguments, citing precedents and clarifying that construction after selling UDS constitutes a service, not the sale of constructed flats. The Tribunal directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 45 lakhs within eight weeks, emphasizing that this decision was interim and would not prejudice the final hearing.

4. The appellant argued that complying with the Tribunal's direction would exceed 50% of the demand, causing severe financial hardship as they had already paid a substantial amount. The appellant requested interference with the Tribunal's order.

5. The counsel for the Revenue responded to the appellant's submissions during the hearing.

6. The main contention raised by the appellant was financial hardship, but the Court found insufficient evidence supporting this claim beyond a general statement in the affidavit. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's discretionary decision, stating that the appellant failed to establish a case for interference.

7. The Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals at the admission stage, extending the time for compliance with the Tribunal's order by eight weeks and closing the connected matters without costs.

---