Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the asses -see under Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated October 21, 2013 (annexure A -7) 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 the learned Tribunal is justified to direct deposit of 50 per cent, of tax along with interest when the appellant has provided services of storage of foodgrain and not renting of immovable property? (ii) Whether the impugned order is justified when the appellant has strong prima facie case on merits as well as financial condition? (iii) Whether the order of deposit of 50 per cent, of tax and interest would cause irreparable loss to the appellant? (iv) Whether the impugned order is perverse and contrary to the record? Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the assessee was having a number of godowns which were provided to Food Corporation of India for the purposes of storage of agriculture produce. The assessee entered into an agreement with the labour contractor from time to time for labour and cartage work. As per the agreement, the contractor would be responsible for arranging labour and carts for handling and transportation of foodgrains and would make arrangement for loading and unloading of railway wagons. During the audit of the assessee, it was found that the assessee was letting out godowns on rent and no other service like unloading and stacking of goods in storage areas, etc., was being provided to the Food Corporation of India. Accordingly, two show -cause notices dated April 12, 2012 and September 5, 2012 were issued to the assessee to show cause why a total demand of Rs. 5,98,35,490 as well as Rs. 1,45,04,826 and education cess, etc. (totalling Rs. 1,45,04,826) be not recovered. The said show -cause notices were replied by the assessee. The adjudicating authority vide the order dated December 6, 2012 (annexure A -5) confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed penalty. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. Along with the appeals, the appellant also filed stay application. The Tribunal vide order dated October 21, 2013 (Punjab State Warehousing Corporation v/s. C.C.E., Chandigarh -II, Appeal Nos. 56307 and 56579 of 2013) (annexure A -7) directed the appellant to deposit 50 per cent, of the adjudicated liability of service tax along with the proportionate interest on the said amount. Hence, the present appeal.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in terms of order dated December 12, 2013 passed by this court, a sum of Rs. 1 crore was deposited. He argued that the Tribunal be directed to hear the appeal without further deposit.
(3.) The learned counsel for the Revenue opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the amount as directed by the Tribunal was reasonable and justified.;