2019 (1) TMI 1421 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - There is no evidence provided by the appellant in support of the stand that the requirement of Section 35F of the Act has duly been complied with. Thus, it seems that the appellant is very casual in its approach for seeking appellate remedy for resolving its dispute. It is expected that the person seeking justice from the appellate forum, should come forward with clean and clear evidences on facts, inasmuch as, appreciation of evidence is the domain of the original authority, who alleges the wrong doings of the assessee. The appellate body can only decide the issue based on the findings recorded by the lower authority(s) and on the basis of documents available before it. The appellant has not pursued its statutory remedy of appeal diligently. To discourage the uncaring attitude in filing appeal in just and casual manner before the appellate body, some cost should be imposed on the present appellant, for meeting the ends of justice - the appellant is directed to deposit a cost of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in Prime Minister s Relief Fund within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Appellant's approach in seeking appellate remedy.
3. Imposition of cost on the appellant for casual filing of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, since the appellant had already deposited 10% of the disputed amount before filing the appeal with the Tribunal, the Tribunal found it appropriate to consider the appeal in favor of the appellant. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue on merits based on available records and submissions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with statutory requirements for seeking appellate remedy.

2. The Tribunal expressed concern over the appellant's casual approach in seeking appellate remedy. Despite the appellant's advocate's submissions, the Tribunal found a lack of evidence supporting the appellant's compliance with Section 35F of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that seeking justice from the appellate forum requires presenting clear and clean evidence. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellate body can only decide based on lower authority findings and available documents. To discourage such casual filing of appeals, the Tribunal imposed a cost of ?5,000 on the appellant to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within four weeks.

3. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to proceed with the appeal on merits after the appellant complies with the imposed cost. The Tribunal stressed the importance of granting the appellant a personal hearing before deciding the issue afresh. The appeal was disposed of with the above terms, emphasizing the need for diligent pursuit of statutory remedies and compliance with procedural requirements for seeking justice through the appellate process.