Appellant's Waiver Application Denied for Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, citing statutory provisions and judicial precedents. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with the pre-deposit mandate.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Mandatory pre-deposit requirement under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Tribunal's authority to waive the pre-deposit.
3. Financial constraints of the appellant as a ground for waiver.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Mandatory Pre-deposit Requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appeal was filed on December 27, 2021, without the mandatory pre-deposit as required under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The office communicated to the appellant on March 03, 2022, to make the pre-deposit, failing which the appeal would be listed before the Bench. Despite multiple extensions granted by the Bench, the appellant neither appeared nor made the pre-deposit.

2. Tribunal's Authority to Waive the Pre-deposit:
The appellant filed an application seeking waiver of the pre-deposit, citing a good case on merits based on a Supreme Court judgment and personal financial constraints. However, the Tribunal examined section 129E of the Customs Act, which mandates a pre-deposit of a certain percentage of the duty or penalty before filing an appeal and explicitly states that neither the Tribunal nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to waive this requirement post the amendment on 06.08.2014.

The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank and Others, which emphasized that statutory conditions for filing an appeal must be fulfilled, and the Tribunal cannot grant a waiver beyond the provisions of the Act. The decision in Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited vs. Ambuj A. Kasiwal & Ors reiterated these principles.

In Chandra Sekhar Jha vs Union of India and Another, the Supreme Court noted that the new regime under section 129E reduced the pre-deposit requirement but removed the discretionary power to waive it. The Delhi High Court in Dish TV India Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. and M/s Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP v/s Additional Director General (Adjudication), New Delhi, also held that courts cannot waive the statutory requirement of pre-deposit.

3. Financial Constraints of the Appellant as a Ground for Waiver:
The appellant argued financial incapacity to make the pre-deposit due to not conducting any business, the illness of the appellant's father, and loan obligations. However, the Tribunal, referencing the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Ankit Mehta v/s Commissioner, CGST Indore, held that financial constraints do not empower the Tribunal to waive or reduce the mandatory pre-deposit under section 129E.

Conclusion:
In light of the statutory provisions and judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked the authority to waive the pre-deposit requirement. Consequently, the application for waiver was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with the pre-deposit mandate.

Judgment:
The application for waiver of the pre-deposit was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

---