CESTAT Bangalore: Appellant's Payment Claim Accepted Exceeding Pre-deposit

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE accepted the appellant's claim of payment amounting to Rs. 81,85,374, surpassing the mandated pre-deposit amount of Rs. 90 lakhs. Additionally, the appellant's subsequent application for payment of Rs. 10,00,000 was acknowledged, leading to a total deposit exceeding the required sum. Despite the appellant's financial hardship plea lacking documentary evidence, the Tribunal recognized compliance with the pre-deposit order and disposed of the miscellaneous application, concluding the matter based on the evidence presented.

---

---

Issues: Compliance with pre-deposit order, claim of payment, financial hardship plea, documentary evidence, subsequent application for payment

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the issue primarily revolved around the compliance with a pre-deposit order issued to the appellant. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit Rs. 90 lakhs within a specified time frame, which was later extended upon a special request. The Tribunal had previously rejected the appellant's claim of having paid Rs. 81.67 lakhs due to lack of evidence. However, in the current application, the appellant reiterated this claim, supported by the Deputy Commissioner's confirmation of payment amounting to Rs. 81,85,374 based on a report from the Commissioner's office. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the claim at this stage, leading to a total deposit exceeding the pre-deposit amount mandated by the Tribunal.

Moreover, the appellant had pleaded financial hardships and offered to pay an additional Rs. 20 lakhs, although lacking documentary evidence for this amount. Upon further review, it was discovered that a subsequent application was filed by the appellant, asserting payment of Rs. 10,00,000, supported by a relevant challan. The Deputy Commissioner also acknowledged this payment. As a result, the total deposit surpassed the required pre-deposit amount, leading the Tribunal to record due compliance with the stay order and dispose of the miscellaneous application.

Despite the absence of appellant representation during the proceedings, the Tribunal was compelled to acknowledge the compliance with the pre-deposit order based on the evidence presented, ultimately concluding the matter in accordance with the orders issued.

---