2023 (5) TMI 862 - HC - Central Excise

Petitioner denied waiver, granted deposit extension, appeal to proceed if deposit made in time. Writ petition disposed.

M/s Nava Raipur Atal Nangar Vikas Pradhikaran (Former Naya Raipur Development Authority) Versus The Union Of India, Commissioner Central Excise And CGST Raipur

M/s Nava Raipur Atal Nangar Vikas Pradhikaran (Former Naya Raipur Development Authority) Versus The Union Of India, Commissioner Central Excise And CGST ... Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the petitioner seeking relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash a Defect Notice issued by the Tribunal, seeking waiver of pre-deposit for appeal, and financial hardship faced by the petitioner post-Covid-19 pandemic.Relief sought and Background:The petitioner, a statutory body created under Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, was issued a show cause notice for short payment of service tax. An order was passed demanding a substantial amount of service tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner appealed before the Tribunal, but the issue arose due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit as required by law.Petitioner's Arguments:The petitioner argued financial hardship post-Covid-19 pandemic, leading to a cash crunch, inability to pay outstanding loans, and clear bills of creditors. The petitioner contended that the demand in the order was erroneous and sought a waiver of the pre-deposit to contest the appeal on merits. The petitioner also requested an extension of time for depositing the pre-deposit amount.Respondent's Opposition:The respondent opposed the petition, stating that it was not maintainable as it only sought waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit. The respondent highlighted that the notice challenged was a Defect Notice and cited previous decisions where similar requests were denied by the High Court.Court's Decision:The Court noted the provision under Section 35-F of the Act of 1944, which mandates a pre-deposit before entertaining an appeal. Despite the financial hardship claimed by the petitioner, the Court found that the petitioner was profitable post-Covid-19 period. Citing previous judgments, the Court rejected the request for a waiver of the pre-deposit.Conclusion and Order:The Court rejected the plea for waiver but granted an extension of three months for the petitioner to deposit the mandatory pre-deposit before the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that if the pre-deposit is made within the specified time, the appeal will be heard on merits. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.