9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already deposited ₹ 12,15,000/- and the balance is only ₹ 5,56,057/- which has not been deposited, since the petitioner claims to be in penury. A perusal of the statutory provisions will reveal that the amendment to section 35F of the Central Excise Act r/w Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, clearly manifest the intention of the legislature that the waiver of pre-deposit, which was being resorted to, quite often by the courts of law, needed to be amended to make the pre-deposit mandatory. Thus, after the Amendment Act came into force, no discretion is available with the courts of law to waive the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit of 7.5% even if it is assumbed to be onerous in the circumstances of the case - When the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancial years and that all records and details were submitted to the jurisdictional officers under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 as well as the Central Excise Act 1944. He further contended that after the coming into force of the CGST Act, an order was issued on 13.5.2019 levying penalty and service tax upon the petitioner under five different heads, imposing a huge liability upon the petitioner. Though the imposition of liability of service tax and penalty upon the petitioner was impermissible in the circumstances of the case, petitioner challenged the order of the Adjudicating Authority before the CESTAT. As per the provisions of Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 r/w Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, petitioner was bound ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndment was in fact considered by the Delhi High Court in [Dish TV India vs. Union of India and others in Manu/DE/1520/2020] and it was held that in view of the amendment there is no question of any waiver of pre-deposit. It was also observed that time and again the Supreme Court has reminded the High Courts not to interfere with stipulations of mandatory pre-deposits. 7. On a consideration of the rival contentions, it is understood that the limited relief sought for by the petitioner is to waive the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% required to institute an appeal before the CESTAT. When the pre-deposit required for preferring the appeal in the instant case was ₹ 18,06,057/-, petitioner has already deposited ₹ 12,15,000/- and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of , the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Gujarat, [2017 (5) SCC 42 , wherein it was observed that the High courts cannot disregard the statutory mandates. 10. Even in the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in [Pioneer Corporation Vs.Union of India [2016 (340) ELT 63 Delhi], the observations of the court indicates that the interference with the statutory mandates after amendment, must be done only in very rare cases where a justification is made out for such an interference. Despite observing as such, the court refuse to permit waiver of the pre-deposit in that case. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
