2016 (7) TMI 723 - HC - Central Excise

High Court Overturns Pre-Deposit Order, Emphasizes Compliance for Appeal Hearing

Rakesh Construction Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur-I

The High Court set aside the order requiring a pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, after the appellant eventually complied. The ... Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed in absence of fulfilling the condition to pre-deposit under section 35-F of the Act - Held that:- During pendency of the present appeal, appellant deposited entire amount of ₹ 5.50 lac towards pre-deposit, as stated by learned counsel for appellant. In view of aforesaid, we find that if the appellant has complied with the condition of pre-deposit though with delay in given circumstances, appeal needs to be restored. In the background aforesaid, impugned order is set aside and if appellant has already deposited the amount of ₹ 5.50 lac, the Tribunal is directed to hear and decide the appeal on merit after its restoration. Issues: Compliance with pre-deposit order under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, requiring the appellant to deposit &8377; 5.50 lakhs as pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit condition, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on 12.4.2013. Subsequently, during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant deposited the entire pre-deposit amount. The High Court noted this compliance, acknowledging the delayed fulfillment of the pre-deposit condition. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal on its merits after restoration, emphasizing that this direction was in the interest of justice. However, the court clarified that if the appellant had not deposited the &8377; 5.50 lakhs, the original order would stand without interference, thereby disposing of the appeal accordingly.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment primarily revolves around the compliance with the pre-deposit order under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling such conditions for the proper adjudication of appeals, while also considering the circumstances of delayed compliance in this specific case.