Appellant ordered to pre-deposit for service tax demand. Failure to comply may lead to appeal dismissal.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to make a pre-deposit of &8377; 2.75 crores with interest within six weeks to meet statutory requirements regarding a service tax demand order totaling &8377; 13,29,55,191/- for the period October 2005 to September 2012. The Tribunal allowed a stay on the recovery of the remaining adjudicated liability pending appeal, but failure to comply would result in appeal dismissal. The Tribunal dismissed a miscellaneous application for early hearing due to older pending appeals.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Stay application against service tax demand order
2. Demand pertaining to tour operator service
3. Demand related to service tax on payments to GSAs outside India
4. Jurisdiction of Rajasthan High Court over Delhi Commissionerate
5. Invocability of the extended period for demand

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a stay application against the service tax demand order of &8377; 13,29,55,191/- issued for the period October 2005 to September 2012. The demand included amounts for tour operator service and service tax on payments to GSAs outside India under the reverse charge mechanism.

2. Regarding the demand for tour operator service, the appellant argued that a stay was deemed to have been extended by the Rajasthan High Court based on previous orders. The Tribunal noted the High Court's observation that interim orders cannot be deemed vacated if the matter has not reached a conclusion, indicating that the stay granted by the High Court continued. As the issue was identical in show cause notices from Jaipur and Delhi Commissionerates, the Tribunal found it prudent not to order a pre-deposit for the demand related to tour operator service.

3. Concerning the demand for service tax on payments to GSAs outside India, the Tribunal observed that the GSAs were responsible for promoting the appellant's business and booking tickets for special trains, falling within the scope of promotion or marketing services. The Tribunal found that some GSAs did not have offices in India, and the demand was raised only for payments made to such GSAs.

4. Addressing the jurisdiction issue, the Tribunal acknowledged that the Rajasthan High Court did not have jurisdiction over the Delhi Commissionerate. However, due to the similarity of issues between the show cause notices from Jaipur and Delhi Commissionerates regarding tour operator service, the Tribunal decided not to order a pre-deposit for that demand.

5. The appellant raised a contention regarding the invocability of the extended period for demand. The Tribunal found that the services provided by GSAs clearly fell within the purview of business auxiliary service, with no scope for confusion.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered a pre-deposit of &8377; 2.75 crores with proportionate interest to meet statutory requirements. Compliance was mandated within six weeks, with recovery of the remaining adjudicated liability stayed pending the appeal. Default in compliance would result in the dismissal of the appeal for failure to pre-deposit.

7. A miscellaneous application seeking early hearing was dismissed by the Tribunal, citing older pending appeals as a reason for not granting early hearing in this case.

---