Pre-deposit requirement upheld: failure to deposit and inordinate delay defeated judicial challenge to dismissal.

Challenge to an appellate dismissal for failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement in excise/service tax appeals and for apparent time-bar was rejected; the court applied the principle that appellate authorities must insist on pre-deposit and allow opportunity for compliance, and that litigants must seek condonation with plausible justification for delay. The petitioner neither deposited any amount nor offered satisfactory explanation for prolonged delay, and the record showed ex parte demand and procedural deficiencies; consequently the writ seeking to set aside the dismissal was dismissed and the appellate order upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 dismissing the first appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as applied to service tax matters) and for apparent time-bar should be set aside.

Analysis: The petition challenges the appellate order which recorded deficiency notices pointing out absence of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (made applicable to service tax by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994), absence of a condonation application for delay, and absence of power of attorney. The Order-in-Original records that show cause notice was issued and personal hearings were not attended, resulting in an ex parte demand under Section 73 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and related provisions; the appellate authority afforded opportunity for compliance and fixed dates for pre-deposit which the petitioner did not meet. The petitioner's contention that the department should have calculated and communicated the exact pre-deposit amount before permitting deposit is not supported by the appellate record; the petitioner also failed to provide a plausible explanation for prolonged delay in approaching the High Court (writ filed in September 2025 against order dated 22.12.2023). The authorities on delay and laches and the requirement to approach the court within a reasonable time are applicable; the conduct of the petitioner in not depositing any amount and inordinate delay in seeking judicial review weigh against interference.

Conclusion: The petitioner's challenge to the appellate order is rejected; there is no merit to set aside the order dated 22.12.2023 which dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with pre-deposit requirements and related procedural deficiencies. The writ petition is dismissed in favour of the revenue.

---