Appeal Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Rule

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act. Despite multiple opportunities and clear judicial precedents emphasizing the mandatory nature of pre-deposit conditions, the appellant's non-compliance led to the conclusion that the appeal could not be entertained without fulfilling this statutory requirement. The court reiterated that pre-deposit is a condition precedent for appeal, with no discretion for waiver or reduction by the Tribunal or courts.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements.
2. Applicability and interpretation of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Judicial precedents on mandatory pre-deposit conditions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements:
The appeal was filed on January 07, 2022, with five defects, including the crucial issue of pre-deposit. Despite notices served on March 29, 2022, and March 30, 2022, neither the appellant nor their counsel appeared, nor were the defects rectified. The Tribunal granted time until June 02, 2022, to rectify the defects. On June 02, 2022, the appellant still did not make the pre-deposit, leading to an adjournment to July 26, 2022, with a warning of an appropriate order if non-compliance persisted. Despite these opportunities, the appellant failed to make the pre-deposit, leading to the conclusion that the appeal could not be entertained due to non-compliance with statutory requirements.

2. Applicability and interpretation of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962:
Section 129E mandates that appellants must deposit a specified percentage of the duty or penalty before filing an appeal. Post-August 06, 2014, neither the Tribunal nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has the authority to waive this requirement. This amendment removed the Tribunal's previous discretion to waive deposits in cases of undue hardship, thereby making the pre-deposit a mandatory condition for appeal.

3. Judicial precedents on mandatory pre-deposit conditions:
- Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank and Others: The Supreme Court emphasized that statutory conditions for appeals, including pre-deposit requirements, must be fulfilled for an appeal to be entertained. The Appellate Tribunal erred by entertaining appeals without ensuring compliance with these conditions.
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited vs. Ambuj A. Kasiwal & Ors: Reiterated the principles from Narayan Chandra Ghosh, reinforcing the mandatory nature of pre-deposit requirements.
- Chandra Sekhar Jha: The Supreme Court upheld the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under the amended Section 129E, rejecting the appellant's argument for applying pre-2014 provisions.
- Dish TV India Limited vs. Union of India & Ors: The Delhi High Court held that courts cannot waive the statutory pre-deposit requirements, as the law itself provides significant relief by reducing the deposit percentage.
- M/s Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP vs. Additional Director General (Adjudication): The Delhi High Court emphasized the absolute bar on entertaining appeals without the mandatory pre-deposit, highlighting the peremptory language of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, analogous to Section 129E of the Customs Act.
- Diamond Entertainment Techno. P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST: Reinforced the mandatory nature of pre-deposit for appeals.
- Ankit Mehta vs. Commissioner, CGST Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition against the Tribunal's order for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements, despite financial constraints.

Conclusion:
The appellant's failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, despite multiple opportunities and clear judicial precedents, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The statutory provisions and judicial interpretations unequivocally mandate the pre-deposit as a condition precedent for entertaining any appeal, leaving no room for waiver or reduction by the Tribunal or the courts.

---