2024 (6) TMI 305 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal Rejected for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Pre-Deposit; Tribunal Upholds Strict Adherence to CBIC Guidelines.

M/s Jetha Ram Mali Versus Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax And Central Excise, Basni, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

M/s Jetha Ram Mali Versus Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax And Central Excise, Basni, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - TMI Issues:Appeal against rejection due to non-compliance of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944.Analysis:Issue 1: Compliance with mandatory pre-depositThe appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of his appeal due to non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The appellant had deposited a partial amount as pre-deposit for filing the appeal, but the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The appellant argued that the pre-deposit was made through GST DRC-03 form and was willing to make the pre-deposit through CBIC-GST integrated portal as well. However, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments and held that payment through DRC-03 is not permissible under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant did not follow through on the claim to make the pre-deposit as per the CBIC Circular, ultimately upholding the rejection of the appeal.Issue 2: Pre-deposit payment methodThe Tribunal emphasized that the payment method for pre-deposit in cases related to Central Excise and the Finance Act, 1994 is clarified in the CBIC Circular dated 28.10.2022. It was held that the deposit made by the appellant through DRC-03 cannot be accepted as a valid pre-deposit under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the appellant's claim that they were willing to make the pre-deposit as per the circular, the Tribunal pointed out that the CBIC Circular dated 18.04.2023 explicitly states that payment of pre-deposit under DRC-03 is not acceptable. The appellant was expected to adhere to the payment method outlined in the circular, which they failed to do, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Conclusion:In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's submissions regarding the pre-deposit method and upheld the rejection of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal provisions outlined in the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the relevant CBIC Circulars. The appeal was ultimately dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with the prescribed pre-deposit requirements.