2023 (4) TMI 50 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - non-deposit of pre-deposit - Section 35F of CEA - HELD THAT - Appeal admitted on following questions of law (1) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in insisting on mandatory pre-deposit when nothing was left with the appellant. All the assets and immovable properties have been auctioned and the factory was under the orders of Liquidation? (2) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in keeping an honest assessee and dishonest assessee on the same footing?

Summary

Issues involved: Delay condonation application; Validity of judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Delay Condonation Application: The appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 111 days, attributing the delay to the dismissal of a previous writ petition and subsequent filing under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application was deemed sufficient, and the delay was condoned, allowing the appeal to be given a regular number.

Validity of Judgment and Order: The appellant challenged the Tribunal's judgment on the grounds of not considering why the appellant couldn't make a pre-deposit and alleging that Section 35F of the Act is unfair as it treats honest and dishonest assessees equally. The respondent argued that the Tribunal's decision was lawful, citing precedents such as Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India and Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India. The appeal was admitted on specific questions regarding the justification of mandatory pre-deposit when the appellant had no assets left and whether the Tribunal was correct in treating honest and dishonest assessees alike.