Supreme Court reinstates appeal, appellant must pay costs to proceed. Dispute over service tax liability resolved.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and reinstated the appeal for consideration on its merits. The appellant was required to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent within three weeks for the appeal to proceed; failure to do so would lead to dismissal. The case involved disputes over service tax liability on "appearance money," with the Union of India confirming recovery of the entire due amount during the legal process. The court granted the appellant an opportunity to contest the appeal, addressing doubts raised by the Revenue regarding the filing process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal for non-deposit of pre-deposit amount.
2. Dismissal of appeal by CESTAT due to delay.
3. Dispute regarding service tax liability on "appearance money."
4. Appeal process before various authorities.
5. Recovery of entire amount due by way of service tax, penalty, and interest.
6. Filing of appeal by the assessee and doubts raised by the Revenue.
7. Granting opportunity to the assessee to contest the appeal on merits.
8. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the appeal for disposal on merits with a condition of paying costs.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question was dismissed initially by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the non-deposit of a pre-deposit amount of Rs. 16.50 lakhs. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed by CESTAT due to a delay of 812 days. The High Court declined interference in the matter based on the circumstances presented.

2. The dispute revolves around the service tax liability on an amount of Rs. 1.50 crores received by the appellant as "appearance money" during the period of April 2007 to March 2008. The appellant claimed this income as a gift earned towards the inauguration of certain shops, arguing it was not subject to service tax.

3. The appeal process involved multiple stages, starting with a notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax, demanding service tax outstandings. The appellant's appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT were met with dismissals, leading to further legal proceedings.

4. The Union of India confirmed the recovery of the entire amount due by way of service tax, penalty, and interest during the pendency of the proceedings. The recovery process involved notices to bankers and the remittance of the outstanding amounts.

5. There were discrepancies regarding the filing of an appeal by the appellant against the order dated 28 November 2013. The Revenue doubted the filing, while the appellant claimed to have filed an appeal, supported by proof of filing. The court decided to grant an opportunity for the assessee to contest the appeal on merits.

6. In the final judgment, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the appeal for disposal on merits. The appellant was directed to pay costs amounting to Rs. 50,000 to the respondent as a condition for the appeal's hearing, with a deadline of three weeks for the payment. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal.

---