TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed Due to Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Rule</h1> <h3>M/s Soni E Vehicle Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi</h3> The appellant's failure to comply with the statutory pre-deposit requirement resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. Despite multiple extensions granted ... Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- Section 129E of the Customs Act deals with deposit of a certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal. It provides that the Tribunal shall not entertain any appeal unless the appellant has deposited 7.5% or 10% of the duty demanded or penalty imposed. The Customs Act does not provide for waiver of this mandatory deposit before filing appeal. 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 section 129E of the Customs 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 Tribunal erred in law in entertaining the appeal. Thus, appeal is held to be dismissed for non-compliance of the statutory requirement and is dismissed. Issues:- Failure to make statutory pre-deposit- Appellant's repeated requests for extensions- Legal provisions on pre-deposit under Customs Act- Supreme Court's interpretation of pre-deposit requirements- Delhi High Court's decision on pre-deposit waiverFailure to make statutory pre-deposit:The appellant in this case failed to make the statutory pre-deposit despite multiple opportunities granted by the tribunal. The appellant was required to pay a specific amount as pre-deposit, but despite several extensions, no payment was made. This non-compliance led to the dismissal of the appeal.Appellant's repeated requests for extensions:The appellant made several requests for extensions to make the pre-deposit, which were granted by the tribunal. However, despite the repeated opportunities given, the appellant failed to fulfill the pre-deposit requirement within the stipulated time frame.Legal provisions on pre-deposit under Customs Act:Section 129E of the Customs Act mandates the deposit of a certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing an appeal. The tribunal cannot entertain an appeal unless the appellant has deposited the required amount, as specified by the Act. The Act does not provide for a waiver of this mandatory deposit.Supreme Court's interpretation of pre-deposit requirements:The Supreme Court's judgment in Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank highlighted that conditions can be imposed for the exercise of the right to appeal. The Court emphasized that the deposit under the relevant provisions is a condition precedent for filing an appeal, and the tribunal cannot grant a waiver of pre-deposit beyond the statutory provisions.Delhi High Court's decision on pre-deposit waiver:In Dish TV India Limited vs. Union of India, the Delhi High Court emphasized that the law itself has provided for a waiver of pre-deposit to a certain extent and made it mandatory to deposit a specific percentage of the duty amount. The Court held that when the law is clear and unambiguous, courts cannot waive the requirement of deposit. The High Court's decision reinforced the statutory provisions regarding pre-deposit under the Customs Act.In conclusion, the appellant's failure to comply with the statutory requirement for pre-deposit led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgments from the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court underscored the importance of adhering to the pre-deposit requirements as mandated by the law, without room for waivers beyond what is specified in the relevant statutes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
