TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has also been filed under section 129E of the Customs Act for dispensing with the pre- deposit requirement of 7.5 per cent. It has been stated that the appellant is not in any regular job and that his father has also suffered from a stroke. Thus, because of financial problems the appellant will not be able to make the pre-deposit. It has, therefore, been stated in the application that requirement of pre-deposit may be waived. 3. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Department has, however, contended that section 129E of the Customs Act does not permit waiver of requirement of deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed and as it is mandatory the application deserves to be rejected.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 18(1) of the Act confers a statutory right on a person aggrieved by any order made by the by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. However, the right conferred under Section 18(1) is subject to the condition laid down in the second proviso thereto. The second proviso postulates that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. However, under the third proviso to the sub section, the Appellate Tribunal has the power to reduce the amount, for the reasons to be recorded in wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in entertaining the appeal without directing the appellant to comply with the said mandatory requirement. 9. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that as the amount of debt due had not been determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, appeal could be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal without insisting on pre-deposit, is equally fallacious. Under the second proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 18 of the Act the amount of fifty per cent, which is required to be deposited by the borrower, is computed either with reference to the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors or as determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. Obviously, where the amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court held that when the Statue itself has provided wavier of pre-deposit to the extent of 90% or 92.5% of the duty amount and has made it mandatory to deposit 7.5% or 10% of duty amount, as the case may be, the Courts cannot waive this requirement of deposit. The observations of the Delhi High Court are as follows: "7. Previously, prior to amendments of the statue, applications for wavier of the pre-deposit were being preferred. Several litigations have travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court upon such applications for waiver of pre-deposit. 10. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions of the Act, it appears that the statue has now effected wavier of pre-deposit to the extent of 90% or 92.5% of the duty amount and ....