Appeal dismissed for failure to make mandatory pre-deposit under Customs Act.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit as required by Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite multiple opportunities and clear statutory provisions mandating the pre-deposit, the appellant did not comply, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The decision was in line with judicial precedents emphasizing the strict adherence to pre-deposit requirements and the lack of discretionary power to waive such obligations post-August 06, 2014.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal.
2. Non-appearance of the appellant and removal of defects.
3. Interpretation and application of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Judicial precedents on mandatory pre-deposit for appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Pre-deposit Requirement for Filing an Appeal:
The appeal was filed on January 07, 2022, with five defects, including the crucial defect related to the pre-deposit. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 129E mandates a pre-deposit of a certain percentage of the duty demanded or penalty imposed before an appeal can be entertained. This requirement is non-negotiable and must be fulfilled for the appeal to proceed.

2. Non-appearance of the Appellant and Removal of Defects:
Despite notices served on the appellant and their counsel, the appellant neither appeared nor made the required pre-deposit. The Tribunal granted additional time until June 02, 2022, to rectify the defects, but the appellant failed to comply. Consequently, the Tribunal adjourned the matter to July 26, 2022, with a clear warning that failure to make the pre-deposit would result in an appropriate order being passed.

3. Interpretation and Application of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962:
Section 129E stipulates that the Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals) shall not entertain any appeal unless the appellant has deposited a specified percentage of the duty or penalty. The Tribunal highlighted that post-August 06, 2014, there is no discretionary power to waive this pre-deposit requirement, unlike the previous regime where undue hardship could justify a waiver.

4. Judicial Precedents on Mandatory Pre-deposit for Appeals:
The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents to underscore the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit requirement:
- Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank and Others (2011) 4 SCC 548: The Supreme Court held that statutory conditions for appeals, such as pre-deposit requirements, must be strictly adhered to, and the appellate bodies have no authority to waive these conditions.
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited vs. Ambuj A.Kasiwal & Ors (2021): Reiterated the principles laid down in Narayan Chandra Ghosh, affirming the mandatory nature of pre-deposit.
- Chandra Sekhar Jha: The Supreme Court noted the shift from the previous regime, emphasizing that the new provisions reduce the pre-deposit amount but eliminate the discretion to waive it.
- Dish TV India Limited vs. Union of India & Ors (2020): The Delhi High Court held that courts cannot waive the statutory pre-deposit requirements, as the law itself provides significant relief by reducing the pre-deposit amount.
- M/s Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP vs. Additional Director General (Adjudication) (2019): The Delhi High Court confirmed that appeals filed post-amendment must comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
- Diamond Entertainment Techno. P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST (2019): Affirmed the mandatory nature of pre-deposit for appeals.
- Ankit Mehta vs. Commissioner, CGST Indore (2019): The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition where the appellant failed to make the pre-deposit, reinforcing that neither the Tribunal nor the courts can waive this requirement.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit, despite multiple opportunities and clear statutory requirements, necessitated the dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

---