Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—These four appeals under Section 35 (G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1944) are directed against the identical orders dated 26.2.2013 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) refusing to allow full waiver of pre-deposit of outstanding demand of tax and penalty as prescribed under Section 35 F of the Act, 1944 and directing to deposit 40% of the demand to maintain the appeals. The orders dated 11.4.2013 dismissing the appeals for non-compliance of orders passed under Section 35 F are also subject-matter of challenge in these appeals.

2. Since all the four appeals have been filed by the same appellant and are based on same set of facts raising common question of law, as such, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Factual matrix of the case, in brief, relevant for the purpose of the case are as under.

4. The appellant claims to be a proprietorship firm having a registration for service tax under the category of ‘Construction Work’. It is further claimed that the appellant is a service provider of maintenance/sanitation services at the factory premises of M/s. HAL Korwa, Amethi. It is also alleged that the service rendered by the appellant comes under the category of sanitation, on account of which, it has no liability for payment of service tax as the sanitation service does not fall within the net of service tax, but under some confusion and misguidance, it was issued registration under ST-2 in the category of ‘Civil Structure Construction Work’. Four notices were issued requiring it to show-cause why outstanding of service tax and short payment of service tax, primary education cess, secondary and higher education cess alongwith interest and penalty, as per the provisions of service tax laws, be not recovered from it. The said notices were in respect of the outstanding tax liability and shortage in payment of tax and cess for different periods. Appellant submitted its show-cause. The Assessment Commissioner Excise, Raibarely and Lucknow passed the orders in original on different dates confirming the demand. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed four appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the orders in original, which were rejected. The appellant thereafter filed appeals before the Customs and Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

5. By virtue of Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, the provisions of Act, 1944 have been made applicable to the Service Tax, as they apply in relation to a duty of excise.

6. Section 35 F of the Act, 1944 reads as under.

“35 F. Deposit, pending appeal of duty demanded or penalty levied.—Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of central excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied:

Provided that where in any particular case, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal, may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of revenue:

Provided further that where an application is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for dispensing with the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied under the first proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing.”

7. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions goes to show that Section 35 of the A