TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Pre-deposit under Section 35F satisfied by FORM ST-4 payment and cenvat credit; no further cash pre-deposit required</h1> <h3>Dover India Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Prakash Indoria Versus Commissioner of (Appeals-II), Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Tax Poonamallee Division, Chennai</h3> HC held that the petitioner had already satisfied the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F by pre-depositing Rs. 35,00,000 through FORM ... Dismissal of appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not made the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to appeals under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 - held that:- A reading of Sl.No.5A and Sl.No.6 of FORM ST-4 indicates that the petitioner has already pre-deposited a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-. The petitioner is required to deposit only 7.5% of Rs. 36,97,948/-. Since the petitioner has already pre-deposited the amounts over and above 7.5% of Rs. 36,97,948/-, the question of insisting the petitioner to pre-deposit further 7.5% of the disputed tax cannot be countenanced. The issue is now no longer res integra. The issue has been settled by the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Cadila Health Care Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India [2018 (11) TMI 80 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein, it has been held that 'Predeposit made by the petitioners by availing cenvat credit shall be accepted for the purpose of section 35F of the Central Excise Act'. The impugned Order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent / appellate authority is quashed and the case is remitted back to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order, without insisting on any further pre-deposit in cash - Petition disposed off by way of remand. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an appellate authority can dismiss an appeal under Section 35F for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement where the appellant has already made a pre-deposit by utilising CENVAT/Credit (as recorded in Form ST-4) rather than by cash. 2. Whether an appellate authority may insist on an additional cash pre-deposit when the amount already pre-deposited (including CENVAT/Credit) equals or exceeds the percentage required under Section 35F. 3. Whether consequential measures taken by revenue (specifically attachment of the appellant's bank account) must be vacated where the pre-deposit requirement has been satisfied by the appellant. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit where pre-deposit made by CENVAT/Credit Legal framework: Section 35F of the Central Excise Act requires deposit of specified percentages of the duty/penalty (7.5% or 10% as applicable) before filing appeals; provisos cap the amount and exclude certain pending appeals. The provision is made applicable to appeals under the Finance Act, 1994. Precedent treatment: The Court treated prior High Court authorities (notably a Gujarat High Court decision and other High Courts including Jharkhand and Allahabad) as directly relevant and persuasive. Those decisions hold that CENVAT/Credit represents duty already suffered and may be utilised for purposes of pre-deposit unless rules expressly prohibit such utilisation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the statutory requirement of deposit under Section 35F and the documentary record (Form ST-4) showing that the appellant had already pre-deposited Rs. 35,00,000/-. The Court construed CENVAT/Credit as amounts representing duty already suffered and available for encashment for specified purposes under the Rules. Applying the reasoning of the cited High Court authorities, the Court concluded nothing in the Rules forbids using CENVAT/Credit to satisfy the pre-deposit requirement. Where the documented pre-deposit (including credit) meets or exceeds the statutory percentage, the appellate authority cannot insist on further cash deposit. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an appellate authority cannot reject/ dismiss an appeal solely on the ground that the pre-deposit was effected through CENVAT/Credit rather than cash where the deposited amount satisfies the Section 35F percentage requirement. Obiter - observations about procedural niceties (e.g., whether communications constitute appealable orders) were noted from precedent but are not essential to the determinative finding. Conclusions: The Court held that dismissal for alleged non-compliance with Section 35F was impermissible where the appellant had already effected the required pre-deposit by utilising CENVAT/Credit recorded in the statutory form; the appellate authority's insistence on cash alone could not be countenanced. Issue 2 - Requirement of additional cash pre-deposit when recorded pre-deposit equals/exceeds the statutory percentage Legal framework: Section 35F prescribes the percentage to be deposited and caps the quantum; it does not on its face prescribe the mode (cash versus utilization of credit) in terms that prohibit use of available credits. Precedent treatment: Decisions relied upon by the Court (including the Gujarat High Court and other High Courts) treated the utilisation of CENVAT/Credit to meet pre-deposit obligations as permissible, and departmental practice had at times accepted such treatment. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court assessed the calculation: the required pre-deposit was 7.5% of Rs. 36,97,948/-, and the appellant had already pre-deposited Rs. 35,00,000/-. Since the already deposited amount exceeded the statutory 7.5% figure, the Court reasoned that no further deposit could properly be insisted upon. The Court emphasized that the substance of Section 35F is satisfied where the requisite quantum has been deposited, and the mode (when effected through available statutory credits) cannot be elevated into a ground for rejecting the appeal absent rule-based prohibition. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the quantum required by Section 35F is already deposited (including by application of CENVAT/Credit), an appellate authority cannot demand further cash pre-deposit. Obiter - incidental remarks regarding departmental non-communication or classification of orders as mere communications (taken from precedent) are not essential to the holding. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the appellate authority erred in requiring an additional cash pre-deposit; the previously recorded deposit satisfied Section 35F and precluded further monetary demand. Issue 3 - Vacation of bank-account attachment where pre-deposit requirement satisfied Legal framework: Attachment or coercive measures by revenue authorities are consequential steps normally justified to secure recovery where demand remains unpaid; satisfaction of statutory pre-deposit obligations removes the basis for such coercive measures taken to enforce the disputed demand to the extent covered by the pre-deposit. Precedent treatment: The Court relied upon the logical corollary of the authorities permitting CENVAT/Credit to meet pre-deposit obligations - once the pre-deposit obligation is met, the justification for attachments intended to secure the disputed demand evaporates. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the Court's conclusion that the pre-deposit requirement was satisfied by the appellant's recorded payment/credit, the Court held that the attachment of the appellant's bank account must be vacated automatically, as the underlying reason for the attachment no longer subsists. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where pre-deposit obligations under Section 35F are satisfied (including by utilisation of CENVAT/Credit), attachments imposed to secure the disputed demand must be vacated. Obiter - none relevant beyond the remedial direction. Conclusions: The Court directed that the bank account attachment stands vacated in view of satisfaction of the pre-deposit requirement and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh disposal without insisting on any further cash pre-deposit. Disposition and Remedy The Court quashed the impugned appellate order that dismissed the appeal for alleged failure to pre-deposit, remitted the matter to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order without requiring any further cash pre-deposit, and directed that the bank account attachment be vacated. The directions follow the Court's application of Section 35F and the precedents recognising the permissibility of using CENVAT/Credit to meet pre-deposit obligations where the recorded deposit satisfies the statutory percentage.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
