2013 (8) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty as specified therein. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Commissioner on the ground that petitioner failed to pre-deposit 20% of the tax amount as directed by the lower appellate authority. Aggrieved, by the consequent rejection of the appeal for failure to pre-deposit, petitioner preferred Service Tax Appeal No.1539/2010. The said appeal was finally disposed of by order dated 22.7.2011. This Tribunal noted the contention on behalf of the petitioner that due to financial constraints, the deposit as directed by order dated 20.10.2010 of the Appellate Commissioner could not be made and a further six weeks was allowed to pre-deposit the amount as directed earlier by the lower appellate authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ier final order of the Tribunal dated 22.7.2011 (directing to pre-deposit 20% of the adjudicated tax liability), is contrary to the judgment of High Court of Delhi in Super Tyres Ltd. vs. UOI - 2005 (186) ELT 49 (Del.) and interim order dated 7.1.2.2007 by this Tribunal in Hotline Display Devices Limited vs. C.C.E., Noida . 5. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner does not commend acceptance. The decision of Delhi High court in Super Tyres Ltd (supra) was in a different factual context. The facts in Super Tyres Ltd. require to be noted for identifying the distinct factual matrix. Appeal to this Tribunal was preferred against the adjudication order dated 25.10.2004. This Tribunal disposed of the application for waiver of central ....