TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants/Applicants before the Tribunal. Each one of them filed the application seeking stay/waiver of a condition of pre-deposit. The Tribunal has passed the order on 13-5-2013 directing that there will be stay and waiver on the condition that the Appellants remit 50% of the amount, namely, 50% of the Service Tax demand raised on them. 3. Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submits that the Appeals raise a substantial question of law particularly with regard to the manner in which the Tribunal has exercised its discretion. Mr. Sridharan submits that there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the Appellants inasmuch as the Appellants like similarly situated developers and builders are rendering ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it should have granted unconditional stay. The order passed imposing 50% deposit of the Service Tax demand is thus vitiated in law. Mr. Sridharan has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [2009 (13) Service Tax Reporter 490 (Bom.)] wherein this Court emphasized the rule of consistency and held that the Tribunal should not discriminate between two set of litigants who have brought identical litigation even at an interlocutory stage. For all these reasons it is submitted that the Appeals raise a substantial question of law and deserve to be entertained and allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Estate Service Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is that of an interlocutory order. In Jetlite India Limited (supra) the final judgment is delivered, but whether the ratio therein is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case is yet to be determined and decided by the Tribunal. In these circumstances the condition imposed cannot be said to be vitiated by perversity or discrimination. The Appeals, therefore, do not raise, any substantial question of law and deserve to be dismissed, is the submission of Mr. Jetly. Mr. Jetly relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1986 SC 662 = 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.). 5. We have with the assis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e not providing any service and that was mere cost sharing arrangement with eight companies. Whether, such arrangement was devised to circumvent the provisions of the Finance Act and to get over the definition of the term "business axillary service", is the issue which is at the root of the matter and will be answered at the hearing of the Appeals. Presently, the Tribunal found that this was not a case of mere cost sharing arrangement as pleaded and urged. Prima facie this was found to be a modus oparendi to circumvent and get over the Act. Thus, prima facie the Appellants' case cannot be equated with K. Raheja and Jetlite (supra) .There, prima facie, the distinct legal entities have either advised or assisted the concerned companies in dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....msp;Good deal of arguments were canvassed before us for variation or vacation of the interim orders passed in these cases. Different Courts sometimes pass different interim orders as the Courts think fit. It is a matter of common knowledge that the interim orders passed by particular Courts on certain considerations are not precedents for other cases which may be on similar facts. An argument is being built up now-a-days that once an interim order has been passed by this Court on certain factors specially in fiscal matters, in subsequent matters on more or less similar facts, there should not be a different order passed nor should there be any variation with that kind of interim order passed. It is submitted at the Bar that such variance cr....