4.The petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent as against the order of assessment passed by the second respondent relating to demand of service tax under the head “Maintenance or Repair Services”. The petitioner was issued with two show-cause notices dated 18.10.2010 and 09.09.2011, and in spite of the objections raised by the petitioner, the demands were confirmed. Along with the appeal petition, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition for grant of stay of the order in original dated 28.02.2012, a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal as well as the appeal petition. The first respondent, by order dated 21.01.2013 in the stay petition, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.7.25 lakhs, directed the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.14 lakhs within a time frame. According to the petitioner, he has complied with the said condition and remitted the said sum of Rs.14 lakhs and also remitted a sum of Rs.41,43,127/- on various dates. The first respondent, while considering the appeal, in paragraph-6 of the order, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not complied with the pre-deposit issue. This appears to be a factual error as the demand of Rs.14 lakhs as ordered by the first respondent was paid through banking channel. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at in paragraph-6 of the first respondent requires interference.
