TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs within a period of eight weeks and granting waiver of deposit of the balance tax, interest and penalty, pending the appeal. 2. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal are - "1) Whether the order of the Tribunal is right in directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 30 Lakhs for hearing the appeal, when the appellant is not liable to pay the service tax, since they are only the sub-contractor of the main contractor. 2) Whether the order of the Tribunal is right in directing the appellant to pre-deposit when the main contractor themselves admitted that they have already paid the service tax liability to the Department. 3) Whether the Tribunal is right when the sub-c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely revenue neutral, since the service recipient is entitle for Cenvat Credit for the payment made to the appellant." 3. The appellant undertook the job of executing a sub-contract awarded to the main contractor, viz., Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling and M/s.Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration and Services, who undertook to execute the work for M/s.ONGC, which offered the contract for their hole drilling on seismic exploration activity. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is a registered service tax assessee under the Finance Act, 1994. 4. A show cause notice was issued claiming service tax of Rs. 1,18,39,576/= (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six only) in terms of Section 73 (1), inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liable to discharge tax liability and payment by the main contractor is an issue to be decided in the appeal. However, the Appellate Tribunal, taking note of the undue hardship due to the financial difficulties faced by the appellant herein, ordered pre-deposit as stated above. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 6. Heard Mr.M.N.Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Sundareswaran, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE, (2006) 13 SCC 347, wherein it has been held as under: "8. It is true that on merely establishing a pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods which are not under the control of Central Excise Authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied: Provided that where in any particular case, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal, may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of the Revenue: Provided further that where an application ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rement itself, and the benefit which the applicant would derive from compliance with it. 14. The word undue adds something more than just hardship. It means an excessive hardship or a hardship greater than the circumstances warrant. 15. The other aspect relates to imposition of condition to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. This is an aspect which the Tribunal has to bring into focus. It is for the Tribunal to impose such conditions as are deemed proper to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal while dealing with the application has to consider materials to be placed by the assessee relating to undue hardship and also to stipulate conditions as required to safeguard the interests of the Reven....