9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the remedy of appeal. The provisions are similar to the provisions of section 129E of the Customs Act. The Supreme Court emphasised that when a Statue confers a right to appeal, conditions can be imposed for exercising of such a right and unless the condition precedent for filing appeal is fulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that deposit under the second proviso to section 18(1) of the Act, being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in entertaining the appeal. The Supreme Court also held that the Appellate Tribunal could not have granted waiver of pre-deposit beyond the provisions of the Act. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in ANKIT MEHTA VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST INDORE [ 2019 (3) TMI 1342 - MADHYA PRADESH ] also dismissed the Writ Petition that had been filed against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for the reason that the required pre-deposit was not made. The contention that was advanced before the Tribunal and before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was that the appellant was not in a position to make the pre-deposit due to financial constraints. The appellant has not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the appellant sought time to make certain corrections in the memorandum of appeal and for making the pre-deposit. On March 10, 2022, the learned counsel for the appellant again sought an adjournment to enable him to examine the issue relating to requirement of pre-deposit. The matter was, therefore, directed to be listed on March 21, 2022. 4. The requirement of pre-deposit, as contemplated under section 129E of the Customs Act, has not been complied with by the appellant and it has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the matter may be adjourned as in relation to a conoticee, though the Tribunal had rejected the claim of the said appellant for waiver of deposit and the High Court had maintained the order of the Tribunal, but matter is pending in the Supreme Court. 5. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Department has, however, submitted that there is no provision in the Customs Act for waiver of the pre-deposit amount and in this connection placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court Chandra Sekhar Jha v/s Union of India and Another [ Civil Appeal No. 1566 of 2022 decided on February 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank and Others [ (2011) 4 SCC 548 ], examined the provisions contained in section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 relating to pre deposit in order to avail the remedy of appeal. The provisions are similar to the provisions of section 129E of the Customs Act. The Supreme Court emphasised that when a Statue confers a right to appeal, conditions can be imposed for exercising of such a right and unless the condition precedent for filing appeal is fulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that deposit under the second proviso to section 18(1) of the Act, being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in entertaining the appeal. The Supreme Court also held that the Appellate Tribunal could not have granted waiver of pre-deposit beyond the provisions of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: 7. Section 18(1) of the Act confers a statutory right on a person aggrieved by any order made by the by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal without insisting on pre-deposit, is equally fallacious. Under the second proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 18 of the Act the amount of fifty per cent, which is required to be deposited by the borrower, is computed either with reference to the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors or as determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. Obviously, where the amount of debt is yet to be determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the borrower, while preferring appeal, would be liable to deposit fifty per cent of the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors. Therefore, the condition of pre-deposit being mandatory, a complete waiver of deposit by the appellant with the Appellate Tribunal, was beyond the provisions of the Act, as is evident from the second and third provisos to the said Section. At best, the Appellate Tribunal could have, after recording the reasons, reduced the amount of deposit of fifty per cent to an amount not less than twenty-five per cent of the debt referred to in the second proviso. We are convinced that the order of the Appellate Tribunal, entertaining appellant's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court are as follows: 7. Previously, prior to amendments of the statue, applications for wavier of the pre-deposit were being preferred. Several litigations have travelled up to the Hon ble Supreme Court upon such applications for waiver of pre-deposit. 10 . In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions of the Act, it appears that the statue has now effected wavier of pre-deposit to the extent of 90% or 92.5% of the duty amount and has made it mandatory to deposit 7.5% or 10% of the duty amount, as the case may be. It ought to be kept in mind that the relief is granted by the law itself. Courts cannot be more charitable than the law. When the provisions of the law are explicitly clear or where the provisions of law are absolutely unambiguous, such type of pre-deposits cannot be waived by the courts . 13. In view of the amendment in the Act, especially Section 129E thereof, there is no question whatsoever of the waiver of predeposit. As stated hereinabove, the statue itself has waived 90% or 92.5% of the duty amount, as the case may be, assessed by the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner- assessee has to deposit only 7.5% or 10% (as the case may be) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities, including, inter alia, Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [ (1997) 10 SCC 264 ], A.B.Bhaskara Rao v. C.B.I [ (2011) 10 SCC 259 ], , Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel [ (2010) 4 SCC 393 ], and State of Bihar v. Arvind Kumar [ (2012) 12 SCC 395 ]. 33. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the prayer of the petitioner for being permitted to prosecute its appeal before the CESTAT without complying with the condition of mandatory pre-deposit, cannot be granted. There is, therefore no substance in these writ petitions which are, consequently, dismissed. 13. The same view was taken by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Diamond Entertainment Techno. P. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of CGST, Dehradun [ 2019 (368) E.L.T. 579 (Del.) ]. 14. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ankit Mehta v/s Commissioner, CGST Indore [ W.P. No. 4557/2019 ] also dismissed the Writ Petition that had been filed against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for the reason that the required pre-deposit was not made. The contention that was advanced before the Tribunal and before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
