9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the appellant that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act should be invoked even if the delay is beyond the extended period of thirty days or that the Tribunal has a discretionary power to condone any delay in filing the appeal even after the expiry of the extended period of 30 days. Requirement of pre-deposit should have been waived by the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in NARAYAN CHANDRA GHOSH VERSUS UCO BANK [ 2011 (3) TMI 1478 - SUPREME COURT] , 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 the Finance 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 Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals), is reproduced below: 85. Appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). - (3A) An appeal shall be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of such adjudicating authority, made on and after the Finance Bill, 2012 receives the assent of the President, relating to Service Tax, interest or penalty under this Chapter: PROVIDED that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. 6. A perusal of sub-section (3A) of Section 85 clearly indicates that an appeal shall be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the order of the adjudicating authority in relation to Service Tax, interest or penalty. It further provides that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. The discretion of the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. 9. In the present case, admittedly, the order of the adjudicating authority was received by the appellant on 20 September, 2013 but the appeal was presented before the Commissioner on 05 February, 2016. It was clearly not presented within the period of two months nor within the extended period of one month. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal after placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises. 10. The provision of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 relating to appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) had come up for consideration before the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Act to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. However, the right conferred under Section 18(1) is subject to the condition laid down in the second proviso thereto. The second proviso postulates that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. However, under the third proviso to the sub section, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, 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 appeal without insisting on pre-deposit was clearly unsustainable and, therefore, the decision of the High Court in setting aside the same cannot be flawed. (emphasis supplied) 13. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited vs. Ambuj A.Kasiwal Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 539 of 2021 decided on 16.02.2021] 14. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, committed n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
