9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1059 - AT - CustomsPre- deposit - Non- deposit of mandatory requirement of deposit of 7.5%/10% - Demand in terms of amended provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - the issue of pre-deposit stands finally decided by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2015 (10) TMI 2446 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganesh Yadav Vs. Union of India 2015 (7) TMI 304 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . As against the above decisions, the appellants have not put on record any decision of the Division Bench or any other judgement supporting their stand that pre-deposit is not required. Consequently there is no sufficient force in the appellants stand that the deposits are not required to be made. - Decided against the appellant
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of amended provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals. 2. Applicability of mandatory pre-deposit to appeals filed before or after the enforcement of the amendments. 3. Conflict between various High Court decisions on the retrospective operation of the amended provisions. 4. Requirement of pre-deposit for appeals initiated prior to or after the enforcement of the amendments. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore addressed the issue of mandatory pre-deposit for appeals under the amended provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the amendments required appellants to deposit 7.5% / 10% of the confirmed duty demand at the time of filing the appeal. The Tribunal considered conflicting decisions by various High Courts on the retrospective application of the amendments. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court's decision in Muthoot Finance Ltd. case held that pre-deposit was not required for appeals related to proceedings initiated before the enforcement of the amendments. However, the Division Bench set aside this decision, directing the Tribunal to decide the issue. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. case, which held that the amended provisions were retrospective and applied to all appeals filed on or after 6.8.2014. The Karnataka High Court clarified that the right to file an appeal was conditional upon complying with the pre-deposit requirement of Section 35F. The Tribunal also mentioned the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which upheld the mandatory pre-deposit for appeals filed after 6.8.2014. Furthermore, the judgment highlighted conflicting decisions by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court regarding the requirement of pre-deposit. The Tribunal emphasized that decisions by Division Benches and higher courts carried more weight and binding force. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that since the provisions of Section 129E were not complied with in the appeals under consideration, the appeals were dismissed without delving into their merits. The judgment underscored the importance of following the law declared by higher courts and the necessity of complying with the mandatory pre-deposit requirements for filing appeals.
|
