9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 563 - AT - Central ExciseDismissal of appeal for want of pre-deposit - failure to consider the pre-deposit made through DRC-03 as proper pre-deposit - HELD THAT - As Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed both the appeals for want of pre-deposit which is now been made by the Appellants before the Tribunal the matters are fit to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. In case of D D Interiors 2025 (3) TMI 7 - DELHI HIGH COURT Hon ble Delhi High Court has held that the appeal could not have been rejected merely on the ground that it was deposited on a wrong account especially when the said integrated portal was not even available for the Petitioner at the time of the initial deposit. Matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without revisiting the issue of mandatory pre-deposit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the appellant's failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, renders the appeal non-maintainable. Additionally, the question of whether the subsequent compliance with the pre-deposit requirement before the Tribunal allows for the remand of the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits is also considered. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents The legal framework revolves around Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates a pre-deposit of a certain percentage of the duty or penalty before an appeal can be entertained by the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals). The amendment effective from 06.08.2014 requires a deposit of 7.5% or 10% of the duty or penalty, depending on the nature of the appeal. The provision also includes a cap on the total amount required for pre-deposit and exempts cases pending before the amendment's commencement. Precedents considered include decisions from the High Courts of Mumbai and Kerala, which upheld the constitutionality and applicability of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The case of Nimbus Communications Limited emphasized the necessity of compliance with the amended Section 35F for appeals filed after the amendment date, while Muthoot Finance Limited reinforced the statutory restriction on entertaining appeals without the pre-deposit. Court's interpretation and reasoning The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, as the initial deposit was made through a method not recognized under the amended Section 35F. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant subsequently complied with the pre-deposit requirement by depositing the entire 10% in cash before the Tribunal. Key evidence and findings The Tribunal found that the appellant's initial attempt to comply with the pre-deposit requirement was through a method not permitted under the amended Section 35F, as highlighted by the precedent set in the case of M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal recognized the subsequent compliance with the pre-deposit requirement before the Tribunal as a corrective measure. Application of law to facts The Tribunal applied the legal framework of Section 35F to the facts, determining that the appellant's subsequent compliance with the pre-deposit requirement rectified the initial defect. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of D D Interiors, which supported the view that an appeal should not be dismissed solely due to procedural discrepancies in the pre-deposit when the appellant eventually complies with the requirement. Treatment of competing arguments The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative did not object to the remand of the case for a decision on merits, indicating a consensus that the subsequent compliance with the pre-deposit requirement addressed the initial procedural defect. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the appeals should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits, given the appellant's subsequent compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal emphasized that the remand should proceed without revisiting the issue of mandatory pre-deposit. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that the compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, even if achieved after the initial filing of the appeal, suffices to allow the appeal to be heard on merits. The Tribunal stated, "Appeals are allowed. Matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without revisiting the issue of mandatory pre-deposit." The core principle established is that procedural defects in the pre-deposit requirement can be rectified by subsequent compliance, allowing the appeal to proceed on its substantive merits. The Tribunal's final determination was to remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits, ensuring that the appellant's rights to appeal are preserved once the pre-deposit condition is satisfied.
|
