2025 (10) TMI 6 - HC - Central Excise

Electronic credit ledger pre-deposits satisfy statutory pre-deposit requirement; appeal dismissed, tribunal order upheld as correct

The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Navi Mumbai Versus Tenormac Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

HC dismissed the appeal, holding the impugned CESTAT order to be correct and not raising any substantial question of law. The Court found that ... Compliance with the pre-deposit - pre-deposit made by the Appellants from the electronic credit ledgers are in compliance to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act or not - HELD THAT:- The questions of law as raised in the above Appeal are squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur v/s Sapphire Cable and Services Pvt Ltd [2024 (8) TMI 1403 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In fact, what was challenged in this Appeal was the very same order which is the subject matter of the present Appeal. This Court, in paragraph 4, held that the order passed by the CESTAT correctly concluded that the Appeals filed by the Respondent herein before the CESTAT were validly instituted because the Circular dated 28th October 2022 relied upon by the Appellant/Revenue was subsequent in point of time to the Appeal filed by the Respondent before the CESTAT and the said Circular would operate only prospectively. Accordingly, the Appeal of the Revenue in the case of Sapphire Cable and Services Pvt Ltd. was dismissed. The present Appeal also does not warrant entertainment by this Court. This is because the very same order that is challenged in the present Appeal, was the subject matter of the Appeal in the case of Sapphire Cable and Services Pvt Ltd. This apart, it is found that under the provisions of the GST Act as well, this Court has consistently taken a view that for the purposes of entertaining the Appeal and making a pre-deposit, the Appellant can always utilize the electronic credit ledgers to comply with the said condition. This view has been taken in the case of Oasis Realty v/s Union of India [2022 (10) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as well as in the case of Navnit Motors Pvt Ltd v/s Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-III), Mumbai & Anr [2025 (7) TMI 1130 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. There are no error in the impugned order passed by the CESTAT, and hence does not give rise to any substantial question of law - appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether pre-deposit from electronic credit ledgers satisfies the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act (and analogous GST provisions) for institution of appeals before the Tribunal, notwithstanding departmental Circulars and Instructions issued after filing of the appeal. 2. Whether departmental Circulars/Instructions issued after the filing of appeals - which purport to clarify the manner of making pre-deposit post-GST - apply retrospectively to invalidate pre-deposits already made from electronic credit ledgers, or whether such Circulars operate only prospectively. 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the principle that a beneficial circular may be applied retrospectively while an oppressive circular operates prospectively, in light of higher-court authority on retrospective operation of curative/clarificatory statutes and administrative instructions. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of pre-deposit from electronic credit ledgers under Section 35F (and analogous GST provisions) Legal framework: Section 35F requires prescribed pre-deposit for institution/continuance of appeals. Post-GST regime permits/recognizes electronic credit ledgers for utilization of tax credits; analogous provisions under the GST Act have been interpreted in prior decisions regarding use of electronic credit balances to meet pre-deposit conditions for instituting appeals. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on consistent prior decisions of the same High Court holding that appellants may utilize electronic credit ledgers to comply with pre-deposit conditions (referenced decisions include earlier High Court rulings on the issue). The Tribunal's view accepting such pre-deposits was thereby consistent with those precedents. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that for the purposes of entertaining appeals and making pre-deposits, utilization of electronic credit ledgers is permissible and satisfies the statutory condition. The reasoning is anchored in statutory scheme and earlier judicial determinations under the GST framework which treated electronic credit ledger utilization as effective compliance with pre-deposit requirements. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Tribunal's and this Court's conclusion that electronic credit ledger debits satisfy the pre-deposit requirement constitutes a binding ratio within the factual and statutory matrix considered. Obiter - ancillary remarks about administrative convenience or policy are not central. Conclusions: Pre-deposit from electronic credit ledgers constitutes compliance with Section 35F (and corresponding GST pre-deposit requirements) and does not invalidate the institution of an appeal when so used. Issue 2 - Temporal effect of departmental Circulars/Instructions issued after filing of the appeal Legal framework: Administrative Circulars/Instructions interpret or clarify departmental view on statutory compliance; general principles of administrative law govern whether such circulars operate retrospectively or prospectively, particularly where rights have already crystallized (e.g., appeal filed and pre-deposit made prior to issuance). Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on a contemporaneous High Court decision holding that a Circular issued after the filing of an appeal operates prospectively and cannot invalidate steps already taken by the appellant; the Tribunal's acceptance of appeals instituted prior to the later Circular was held correct. No contrary higher-court precedent was applied to displace that conclusion in the instant facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized chronology: where the Circular relied upon by Revenue post-dates the appeal and the pre-deposit, it cannot be given retrospective effect to defeat an appeal already validly instituted. The Court treated the departmental Instruction/Circular as prospective in operation when it is subsequent in point of time to the act sought to be affected. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A departmental Circular issued after an appeal is filed cannot retrospectively invalidate a pre-deposit already made and an appeal already instituted; such later-dated instructions operate prospectively unless a statutory mandate indicates otherwise. Obiter - discussion on administrative propriety of retroactive Circulars beyond these facts. Conclusions: The Tribunal correctly held that the Circular/Instruction issued after institution of the appeal operates prospectively and does not render the earlier pre-deposit or registration of the appeal invalid. Issue 3 - Application of principle that beneficial circulars may be retrospective while oppressive ones are prospective; interaction with higher-court pronouncements on retrospective operation of clarificatory/curative provisions Legal framework: Principle from prior case-law that beneficial administrative instructions may be applied retrospectively while oppressive ones are prospective; separate doctrine that curative or merely clarificatory statutes/instructions may be given retrospective effect depending on their character as clarification of existing law rather than change of law. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied the beneficial/oppressive distinction in deciding retrospective application. The Court noted the Revenue's reliance on Supreme Court authority allowing retrospective operation of curative/clarificatory measures, but found the present circumstances governed by the timing of the Circular relative to the filing of the appeal and by earlier High Court decisions applying the electronic-credit ledger principle. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court did not accept Revenue's contention that the Circular must be applied retrospectively because it was clarificatory; instead it focused on (a) the chronology (Circular post-dating the appeal), and (b) established High Court precedent treating similar Circulars as prospective when issued after the relevant act. The Court implicitly treated the departmental Circular as not altering or curing past acts to justify retrospective application in these facts. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court's decisive ratio is that retrospective application of a departmental Circular is not warranted where the Circular is subsequent to the filing of the appeal and where settled judicial precedents permit utilization of electronic credit ledgers for pre-deposit; the beneficial/oppressive dichotomy does not override these temporal and precedent considerations in the instant facts. Obiter - broader statements about the circumstances in which clarificatory measures may be retrospective are ancillary. Conclusions: The Tribunal did not err in refusing to apply the Circular retrospectively; the beneficial/oppressive distinction and the higher-court discussions on curative/clarificatory measures do not mandate retrospective application where the Circular was issued after institution of the appeal and where prior judicial decisions support validity of the pre-deposit method used. Cross-references and Final Legal Outcome Cross-reference: Issue 1 and Issue 2 are interlinked - the correctness of accepting electronic credit ledger pre-deposits (Issue 1) is reinforced by the temporal principle that subsequent departmental Circulars cannot retrospectively invalidate previously instituted appeals (Issue 2). The Court relied on prior High Court decisions consistent with both propositions. Final disposition: The Court upheld the Tribunal's order admitting the appeals; it dismissed the challenge to the Tribunal's conclusion that pre-deposits from electronic credit ledgers complied with statutory requirements and that a later-issued departmental Circular could not retrospectively negate such compliance.