- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 19.9.2013 (Annexure A -1) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), claiming the substantial questions of law as mentioned in para 3 of the appeal.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of non -alcoholic beverages and fruit pulp based products under the name of Coca Cola Company (USA). The appellant purchases the concentrates, the ingredients required for manufacture of its final products from Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd., the authorized representative of Coca Cola Company. The Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. executed business protocol based on annual business plan for the appellant highlighting various marketing activities to be executed for achieving the desired growth. Accordingly, two notices dated 9.9.2010 and 23.10.2011 were issued to the assessee to show cause as to why service tax amounting to Rs. 2,80,45,008/ - and Rs. 94,22,503/ - (totaling Rs. 3,74,67,511/ -) for the period from 1.4.2005 to 26.2.2010 and for 2010 - 11, respectively along with interest and penalty be not recovered. Both the show cause notices were duly replied by the assessee. The Commissioner vide order dated 1.3.2012 (Annexure A -4) confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 3,74,65,511/ - and also imposed penalty of an equal amount on the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal along with stay application (Annexure A -5) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.9.2013 (Annexure A -1) directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the assessed service tax liability plus the proportionate interest thereon as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal on merits. Hence, the present appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that in similar cases, unconditional stay had been granted and, therefore, in the present case also, the condition of pre -deposit was required to be waived off. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana and others, 1995 Supp1 SCC 461, it was urged that there should be principle of consistency and binding precedent and uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar cases. He, however, submitted that the requirement to deposit 50% of the assessed service tax liability of Rs. 3,74,67,511/ - plus the proportionate interest thereon as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal was unjustified and excessive. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the amount as directed was reasonable and justified.;