9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 Statute 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. It will also be appropriate to refer to a decision of the Delhi High Court in Dish TV India Limited vs. Union of India Ors. [ 2020 (8) TMI 183 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , wherein the requirement of pre-deposit under section 129E of the Customs Act, came up for consideration. The High Court held that when the Statute itse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against: Provided that the amount required to be deposited under this section shall not exceed rupees ten crores: 4. It would be seen from a bare perusal of section 35F of the Central Excise that after August 06, 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 35F on August 06, 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. 5. The Supreme Court 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 sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirement of pre-deposit under sub- section (1) of Section 18 of the Act is mandatory and there is no reason whatsoever for not giving full effect to the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. In that view of the matter, no court, much less the Appellate Tribunal, a creature of the Act itself, can refuse to give full effect to the provisions of the Statute. We have no hesitation in holding that deposit under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal under the said Section, the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in entertaining the appeal without directing the appellant to comply with the said mandatory requirement . 9. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that as the amount of debt due had not been determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, appeal 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 dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit of the discretionary power available under the proviso to the substituted provisions under section 129E. When the appellant is not being called upon to pay the full amount but is only asked to pay the amount which is fixed under the substituted provisions, we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant. 8. In this connection, it will also be appropriate to refer to a decision of the Delhi High Court in Dish TV India Limited vs. Union of India Ors.[ W.P. (C) 4960 of 2020 decided on 06.08.2020 ] , wherein the requirement of pre-deposit under section 129E of the Customs Act, came up for consideration. The High Court held that when the Statute itself provided wavier of pre-deposit to the extent of 90% or 92.5% of the duty amount and made it mandatory to deposit 7.5% or 10% of duty amount, the Courts cannot waive this requirement of deposit. The observations of the Delhi High 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posited 7.5 % of the duty confirmed against it by the authority below. 29. The two provisos in section 35F relax the rigour of this command only in two respects, the first being that the amount to be deposited would not exceed 10 crores, and the second being that the requirement of pre-deposit would not apply to stay applications or appeals pending before any authority before the commencement of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, i.e. before 6th August, 2014. 30. Allowing the CESTAT to entertain an appeal, preferred by an assessee after 6th August, 2014, would, therefore, amount to allowing the CESTAT to act in violation, not only of the main body of section 35F but also of the second proviso thereto, and would reduce the command of the legislature to a dead letter. 31. That no court can direct an authority to act in violation of the law is settled in innumerable authorities, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
