2019 (3) TMI 1342 - HC - Customs

Customs Appeal Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Rule

Ankit Mehta Versus Commissioner, CGST Indore

The appeal was dismissed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the pre-deposit ... Power to waiver of pre-deposit - maintainability of appeal - appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on account of pre-deposit clause - petitioner claims financial constraints for non-deposit - Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- This Court is of the opinion that Section 129E does not empower the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) to waive the pre-deposit or to reduce the pre-deposit - this Court is also not inclined, keeping in view the statutory provision of law to waive or reduce the pre-deposit and, therefore, no case for interference is made out in the matter - petition dismissed. Issues:1. Appeal dismissal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Applicability of case laws allowing waiver of pre-deposit in similar matters.3. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding pre-deposit requirements.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of the appeal dismissal based on the non-compliance with the pre-deposit clause under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed due to the failure to deposit the required percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed. The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit provision and noted the petitioner's lack of action despite ample time provided for compliance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in line with the statutory requirement.2. The petitioner sought reliance on various case laws, including judgments from different High Courts, where pre-deposit requirements were waived or reduced based on undue hardship to the appellant. However, the court distinguished these cases from the present matter by highlighting the specific provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The court noted that unlike the Central Excise Act, the Customs Act does not grant the appellate Tribunal the authority to waive the pre-deposit. Therefore, the precedents cited by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable due to the statutory framework governing the Customs Act.3. In interpreting the statutory provisions regarding pre-deposit requirements, the court emphasized the clear mandate of Section 129E, which necessitates the deposit of a specified percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed as a prerequisite for entertaining an appeal. Despite the petitioner's arguments and references to judgments where pre-deposit was waived in similar contexts, the court held that the lack of explicit provision in the Customs Act for such waivers precluded any deviation from the prescribed pre-deposit conditions. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the statutory requirement for pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.In conclusion, the judgment underscores the strict adherence to the pre-deposit requirement under the Customs Act, 1962 and clarifies the limitations on waiving or reducing such deposits based on statutory provisions. The court's decision highlights the importance of compliance with legal mandates in appeals before the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for petitioners to fulfill pre-deposit obligations as stipulated by law.