Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. This appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, ‘the Act’). The appellant is a company engaged in construction and execution of infrastructure projects and obtained service tax registration with the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Customs Department, Hyderabad – II, Commissionerate. On the basis of the intelligence said to have been received by them, the respondent initiated proceedings against the appellant proposing to levy service tax under different heads and interest provided for under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Finance Act’) and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of that Act. After hearing the appellant, the respondent passed an order dated 21.09.2011 confirming demand of two amounts, namely, Rs.3,87,51,793 and Rs.28,94,07,221/-, directing appropriation of a sum of Rs.44,45,277/- and confirming the demand for interest under Section 75, penalty of Rs.32,81,59,014/- under Section 78 and Rs.5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed an appeal, being Service Tax Appeal No.131 of 2001, before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). It has also filed Application No.46 of 2012, with a prayer to waive the predeposit. Through its order dated 10.07.2013, the Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit only to the extent of 66% of the amount of Rs.3,87,51,793/- and the penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. Not satisfied with the said order, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25434 of 2013. At one stage, this Court passed an interim order in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was finally disposed of on 13.11.2013, observing that the order passed by the Tribunal is appealable under Section 35G of the Act. Accordingly, the present appeal is filed. Sri S. R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has advanced arguments on several aspects. He contends that the very demand of the service tax from the appellant is under misconception of the relevant provisions of law. He contends that the works executed by the appellant were those which were entrusted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the component of service tax was not at all included in the estimates or the bills. He contends that the very demand of the service tax from the appellant is under misconception of the relevant provisions of law. He contends that the works executed by the appellant were those which were entrusted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the component of service tax was not at all included in the estimates or the bills. He submits that though the waiver of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act may result in some relief to the appellant, the insistence on payment of the entire amount of service tax levied by the respondent and the interest thereon, would cripple the activity of the appellant. Sri G. Sampath Kumar, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the respondent passed a detailed order after taking into account, every aspect and the Tribunal was also of the view that the appellant is liable to pay the amount covered by the Order-in-Original dated 21.09.2011 passed by the respondent. He submits that the appellant cannot avoid the statutory obligation to deposit the amount and no interference is warranted with the order passed by the Tribunal. The scope of the appeal is very limited. The respondent passed an Order-in-Original, on the basis of intelligence said to have been received by him. He not only levied tax and interest thereon but also imposed penalty under relevant provisions of law. The appellant has availed the remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. It was only in the context of the waiver of pre-deposit, that the Tribunal passed order in the stay application. Though the Act stipulates a condition that an appeal can be entertained only on making the pre-deposit of the entire amount in question, the appellate authority is conferred with the power to waive that condition in its entirety or in part. The very exercise of such power is discretionary. However, much would depend upon the facts of each case. If the subject matter of an appeal is a routine order of assessment, the Tribunal would be a bit cautious, if not reluctant, to grant waiver, to the extent of pushing the interests of Revenue to detriment. The very exercise of such power is discretionary. However, much would depend upon the facts of each case. If the subject matter of an appeal is a routine order of assessment, the Tribunal would be a bit cautious, if not reluctant, to grant waiver, to the extent of pushing the interests of Revenue to detriment. If, on the other hand, the subject matter of an appeal is exercise of reopening of an earlier assessment or the one, based on intelligence information, received after the assessee paid the tax in the routine manner, a bit of indulgence is required one, based on intelligence information, received after the assessee paid the tax in the routine manner, a bit of indulgence is required to be shown. The reason is that, it is not a case of the assessee not paying the tax at all, but the understanding of the matter, being somewhat different.Another aspect which needs to be taken into account is that if the assessee has appropriated to himself or itself, the amount which is sought to be levied; the appellate authority would certainly be justified in refusing waiver. If on the other hand, there is no such finding that the assessee has collected the amount involved from the persons or agencies, whom the service was rendered, a different connotation arises. In the instant case, the respondent initiated proceedings almost by reopening the assessments for the previous years. The question as to whether the view taken by the respondent is correct, needs to be considered at the stage of hearing of the appeal. The condition as to pre-deposit of the entire amount involved would certainly put heavy burden on the assessee. Whatever may be the justification in enacting such a provision, the remedy of appeal for a citizen cannot be made so dearer, nor can it be kept beyond the reach of an assessee. Indiscriminate denial of the power of waiver would result in a situation where an aggrieved party would be indirectly told “pay or perish”. Just as levy of taxes is an attribute of sovereign power, adjudication of disputes is equally an important attribute of the same species. The only difference is while the former partakes the character of the right of the sovereign Government, the latter is in the form of its duty. Just as levy of taxes is an attribute of sovereign power, adjudication of disputes is equally an important attribute of the same species. The only difference is while the former partakes the character of the right of the sovereign Government, the latter is in the form of its duty. Unless it is tempered with an element of reasonableness, the adjudicatory mechanism is prone to be just an eye-wash. We are of the view that the interests of the appellant on the one hand and the revenue on the other hand can be protected by directing that the appellant shall pay half of the amount demanded towards arrears of service tax and granting waiver for the remaining half as well as the components of interest and penalty under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act. Hence, we partly allow the appeal and modify the order under appeal to the effect that the appellant be granted waiver of pre-deposit, to the extent of 50% of the amounts mentioned in Clauses 1 and 2 of Paragraph 28 of the Order-in-Original passed by the respondent, dated 21.09.2011 and the entire amount mentioned in Clauses 4, 5 and 6 thereof, within six weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of.