2024 (3) TMI 462 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - requirement u/s 129E - HELD THAT - It would be seen from a bare perusal of section 129E of the Customs Act that after 6.8.2014 neither the Tribunal nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have the power to waive the requirement of pre-deposit, unlike the situation which existed prior to the amendment made in section 129E on 06.08.2014 when the Tribunal, if it was of the opinion that the deposit of duty and interest demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship, could dispense the said deposit on such conditions as it deemed fit to impose so as to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. The appellant has not made the pre-deposit. As the law, the appeal would have to be dismissed for non-compliance of the statutory mandatory requirement. Thus, appeal, therefore, is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Pre-deposit requirement u/s 129E of the Customs Act.
2. Non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
3. Legal precedents on the mandatory nature of pre-deposit.

Summary:

Pre-deposit requirement u/s 129E of the Customs Act:

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not made the pre-deposit required u/s 129E of the Customs Act, as amended on 06.08.2014. The relevant section mandates that an appeal cannot be entertained unless the appellant deposits a specified percentage of the duty or penalty. The Tribunal highlighted that post-amendment, neither the Tribunal nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to waive this requirement, unlike the previous regime where discretion was available.

Non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement:

The appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement despite being granted six weeks to do so. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had not received any instructions to make the pre-deposit, leading to non-compliance with the statutory mandate.

Legal precedents on the mandatory nature of pre-deposit:

The Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court and High Court judgments to reinforce the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit requirement. The Supreme Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank and Others and Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited vs. Ambuj A. Kasiwal & Ors held that conditions for filing an appeal, such as pre-deposit, are mandatory and cannot be waived. The Delhi High Court in Dish TV India Limited vs. Union of India & Ors and M/s Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP v/s Additional Director General (Adjudication) also affirmed that courts cannot waive the mandatory pre-deposit requirement stipulated by the statute.

Conclusion:

Given the appellant's failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit and the settled legal position on the issue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the statutory requirement.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)