TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the verification of the sales records, it was noticed that the appellant had not discharged the service tax liability to the tune of Rs. 1,60,82,229/-. Hence, a show cause notice dated 29.7.2010 was issued to the assessee as to why service tax should not be demanded along with interest and penalty. After considering the reply filed by the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 14.12.2011 confirming the demand of service, apart from imposing interest and penalty. Against the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit. 3. The Tribunal, on an earlier occasion, in respect of the appellant's own case passed an order in Miscellaneous Orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch dues during pendency of the appeal." 4. The Tribunal, however, noticed, that insofar as the present case is concerned, there was a plea for waiver of pre-deposit on the ground that there was financial crisis and hardship and submitted the balance sheet of the year ended 31.3.2014. The Tribunal, however, though it fit not to differ from the earlier order imposing condition that the appellant should make pre-deposit of 50% of the tax for the subsequent period, passed the following order: "5. In view of the above discussion and following the earlier stay order, we direct the applicant to predeposit Rs. 80,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 19.8.2014. Upon such deposit, predeposit of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no legs to stand on, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should not be disposed of in a routine manner unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. There can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order has to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. Merely because this Court has indicated the principles that does not give a licence to the forum/authority to pass an order which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legality and public interest. Where denial of interim relief may lead to public....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anded or penalty levied under the first proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing." 11. Two significant expressions used in the provisions are undue hardship to such person and safeguard the interests of the Revenue . Therefore, while dealing with the application twin requirements of considerations i.e. consideration of undue hardship aspect and imposition of conditions to safeguard the interests of the Revenue have to be kept in view. 12. As noted above there are two important expressions in Section 35-F. One is undue hardship. This is a matter within the special knowledge of the applicant for waiver and has to be established by him. A ....