Court sets aside non-speaking pre-deposit order, emphasizes balance of interests. Appellant allowed financial hardship application.

The court found that the order directing pre-deposit was non-speaking and failed to consider the prima facie case or the financial position of the appellant. The court emphasized that the appellate authority should balance the interests of the Revenue and the appellant. As the order was passed invoking amended provisions while the unamended provisions were applicable, it was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration based on the unamended provisions. As a result, the appellant was permitted to submit an application regarding financial hardship, and the Tribunal was directed to consider it within two weeks. Until the final order, no action was to be taken based on earlier orders.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the alleged Overriding Commission received.
2. Whether the order directing pre-deposit of Rs. 20,00,000 by the first respondent is justified under the amended provisions of Section 35F of The Central Excise Act, 1994.
3. Whether the unamended provisions of Section 35F of The Central Excise Act, 1994 apply to the case of service tax appeals filed before August 6, 2014.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appellant, a Company acting as a General Sales Agent for an airline, challenged a demand for service tax on the Overriding Commission received. The appellant argued that the commission falls under 'export of services' and is not liable for service tax. However, the Commissioner directed payment of the service tax. The appellant appealed, contesting the liability to pay service tax.

Issue 2:
The main contention was whether the order directing pre-deposit of Rs. 20,00,000 was justified. The appellant argued that as there was no liability to pay service tax, the pre-deposit order was against the law. The respondents contended that the pre-deposit was mandatory under the amended provisions of Section 35F of The Central Excise Act, 1994.

Issue 3:
The court analyzed whether the amended provisions of Section 35F applied to service tax appeals filed before August 6, 2014. It was established that the law prevailing at the time of filing the appeal governs the right of appeal. As the appellant's appeal was filed before the amendment, the unamended provisions of Section 35F were deemed applicable.

The court found that the order directing pre-deposit was non-speaking and failed to consider the prima facie case or the financial position of the appellant. The court emphasized that the appellate authority should balance the interests of the Revenue and the appellant. As the order was passed invoking amended provisions while the unamended provisions were applicable, it was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration based on the unamended provisions.

As a result of the remand, the appellant was permitted to submit an application regarding financial hardship, and the Tribunal was directed to consider it within two weeks. Until the final order, no action was to be taken based on earlier orders. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---