2022 (12) TMI 1065 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - appeal filed without making the statutory deposit contemplated under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - It is seen that the earlier appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal on 10.01.2019 for the reason that the mandatory requirement of section 129E of the Customs Act had not been complied with by the appellant and the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed by a detailed order. Similar factual position arises in this appeal. The appellant, even during the last three years, has not deposited the statutory amount. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed for non-compliance of the statutory requirement and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Non-compliance with statutory deposit under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962; Lack of appearance by the appellant in multiple scheduled hearings; Dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court regarding waiver of pre-deposit; Applicability of statutory provisions regarding pre-deposit requirements; Comparison of judgments from different High Courts regarding pre-deposit waivers.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dealt with the issue of the appellant failing to comply with the statutory deposit requirement under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed an appeal without making the necessary deposit, leading to a communication from the Tribunal for pre-deposit. Despite seeking a waiver due to financial difficulties, the Tribunal clarified its lack of jurisdiction to modify the pre-deposit amount as mandated by section 35F of the Central Excise Act, directing the appellant to obtain orders from the High Court. Failure to file a writ petition or make the pre-deposit could result in dismissal of the appeal.

The appellant's repeated non-appearance in scheduled hearings raised concerns regarding their commitment to the appeal process. Despite informing the Tribunal about filing a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the appellant failed to provide updates or attend subsequent hearings, indicating a lack of diligence in pursuing the case. The learned authorized representative for the Department highlighted the dismissal of a previous appeal by the Tribunal and the subsequent rejection of the appellant's writ petition by the High Court due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 129E.

The judgment extensively discussed the statutory provision of section 129E of the Customs Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the deposit requirement for entertaining appeals. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal differentiated between provisions under the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act, clarifying that the appellate Tribunal lacked the authority to waive pre-deposit as seen in other judgments. The Tribunal underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and declined to deviate from the established requirements, ultimately dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit mandate.

In light of the appellant's failure to meet the statutory deposit obligation over the years and the dismissal of a previous appeal for similar reasons, the Tribunal concluded that the current appeal merited dismissal. The judgment emphasized the significance of complying with statutory requirements, highlighting the appellant's persistent non-compliance as grounds for dismissing the appeal. The decision was made based on the established legal framework and the appellant's consistent failure to fulfill the mandatory pre-deposit obligation, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal.