- (1.) THIS order shall dispose of a bunch of four appeals bearing STA Nos. 11 to 14 of 2014 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issues involved therein are identical. For brevity, the facts are being taken from STA No. 11 of 2014.
(2.) STA No. 11 of 2014 has been preferred by the appellant under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 18.2.2014 (Annexure A -5) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), claiming the following substantial questions of law: - (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to deposit the entire demand as a pre -condition to hear the case on merits? (ii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal is justified in rejecting the pre -deposit waiver application of the appellant and deciding it ex -parte without giving opportunity of hearing?
(3.) THE facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is engaged in the activity of retreading of tyres of motor vehicles. It restores the old used and waste tyres to the condition good enough for re -use. In other words, the appellant repairs old tyres to make them fit for re -use by putting layer of treaded rubber on the old tyres with the specialized process. The said process is not a manufacturing process. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee for recovery of service tax for the period from 1.10.2009 to 30.3.2010 amounting to Rs. 3,47,455/ - on account of taxable value of Rs. 38,36,090/ -. The said notice was duly replied by the assessee. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 3.5.2012 (Annexure A -1) confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,47,455/ - and also imposed penalty of equal amount. An additional penalty to the tune of Rs. 6000/ - was also imposed upon the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal (Annexure A -2) on 9.5.2012 before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 29.7.2013 (Annexure A -3) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal (Annexure A -4) along with an application (Annexure A -4/A) for waiver of pre -deposit of service tax before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.2.2014 (Annexure A -5) rejected the said application and directed the assessee to deposit the entire demand. Hence, the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the following liability in all the four appeals had been fastened vide the impugned order dated 18.2.2014 (Annexure A -5): - JUDGEMENT_783_LAWS(P&H)5_2014.htm ;