2015 (12) TMI 409 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Mandatory pre deposit - Held that - present appeals filed by the appellants, in their individual capacity, and they have to submit proof of mandatory deposit separately. So we do not find any force in the submission of Learned Advocate to the extent the deposit made by the main appellant is sufficient to entertain the appeal of the present appellant. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 regarding mandatory deposit for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.

Analysis:
1. The issue at hand revolves around the interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944, specifically focusing on the mandatory deposit required for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The main contention in this case is whether the deposit made by the main appellants on behalf of the present appellants should be considered as compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 35F as amended.

2. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants argued that the main appellants, such as the company or employers, had made the mandatory deposit on behalf of the present appellants, which should be deemed as compliance with the provision. He highlighted previous decisions of the Tribunal where such deposits were accepted as compliance with stay orders. The advocate emphasized that the amended Section 35F does not explicitly state that the deposit must be made by the appellant personally, but rather that the mandatory deposit should be made, irrespective of the depositor.

3. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue contended that the deposit made by the main appellants had no relation to the present appellants since the appeals were filed in the individual capacity of the present appellants. Referring to a letter from the Technical Officer of CESTAT New Delhi, it was emphasized that the challan must reflect the name of the appellant for proper compliance with Section 35F.

4. After careful consideration and perusal of the relevant provisions, the Tribunal examined Section 35F of the Act 1944 as amended on 06/08/2014. It was noted that the section mandates a certain percentage of duty or penalty to be deposited before filing an appeal. The Tribunal observed that any person appealing to the Appellate Tribunal must provide proof of the mandatory deposit, as outlined in Section 35F.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals filed by the present appellants in their individual capacity necessitated separate proof of mandatory deposit, distinct from any deposits made by the main appellants. Emphasizing the requirement for the challan to mention the name of the appellant, the Tribunal held that the appeals would not be entertained unless the appellants submitted evidence of the mandatory deposit in their name.

6. In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal directed the registry to allow the present appellants to submit the necessary evidence linking the challans to their name. It was clarified that compliance with Section 35F and similar provisions in other Acts required the appellants to provide proof of the mandatory deposit in their own name for the appeals to be entertained.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both sides, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the ultimate decision reached by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD regarding the mandatory deposit requirement for filing appeals.

← Previous Next →