- (1.) Heard Sri D.M. Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned Senior Standing Counsel of Central Board of Excise and Customs. The appellant is engaged in the business of printing & fabrication of readymade advertisement material and on imposition of Service Tax on the goods by the Assessing Authority, preferred an appeal, bearing No. ST/117/2012, along with an application for stay praying therein waiver of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal as provided under Section 30(g) of the Service Tax Act, 1994, before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"]. The Tribunal, after going through the records and after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 22-10-2012, whereby the Tribunal directed to deposit Rs. 7 Lakhs as pre-deposit within a period of eight weeks and further directed to waive off the balance of dues arising from the impugned order dated 15-9-2011, subject to pre-deposit of balance by the appellant and stayed on collection of such dues during the pendency of the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Tribunal decided the matter without considering the financial stringency shown in the affidavit in support of the application for interim relief as well as the Bank account of the appellant and directed to make payment of Rs. 7 lakh as pre-deposit during the pendency of the appeal in a most arbitrary and illegal manner and without proper application of mind to the facts of the case. He submits that the power of stay should be judicially exercised and the order should be passed after proper application of sound principles for exercising discretion and the application of stay should be treated casually and the authority should not pass the routine order.
(3.) In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi, 1969 AIR(SC) 430, Mehsana District Cooperative Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 154 ELT 343 and Shri Kihota Hollohon v. Mr. Zachilhu and Others, 1993 AIR(SC) 412 and this Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Moriroku UT India Pvt. Ltd., Noida v. Union of India and Others, 2006 UPTC 274;