AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....022. 2. Neither the learned Counsel for the appellant has appeared nor the defects have been removed. 3. In the interest of justice, we grant time upto June 02, 2022 the appellant to remove the defects. 4. List on June 02, 2022". 2. On 2 June, 2022, the following order was passed :- "Despite notices have been served upon the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the appellant has not made the pre-deposit. Even today, neither the appellant has appeared nor the deposit has been made. 2. We adjourn the matter to July 26, 2022 but make it clear that in case the appellant does not make the pre-deposit an appropriate order on this issue may be passed". 3. It is, therefore, clear with despite service of notice both to the applicant and learned Counsel of the appellant neither pre-deposit has been made nor learned Counsel has appeared. 4. Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 as amended on August 06, 2014, deals with deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing an appeal is reproduced below: "SECTION 129E. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty impos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions are similar to the provisions of section 129E of the Customs Act. The Supreme Court emphasised that when a Statue confers a right to appeal, conditions can be imposed for exercising of such a right and unless the condition precedent for filing appeal is fulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that deposit under the second proviso to section 18(1) of the Act, being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in entertaining the appeal. The Supreme Court also held that the Appellate Tribunal could not have granted waiver of pre-deposit beyond the provisions of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: "7. Section 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 Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 of debt is yet to be determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the borrower, while preferring appeal, would be liable to deposit fifty per cent of the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors. Therefore, the condition of pre-deposit being mandatory, a complete waiver of deposit by the appellant with the Appellate Tribunal, was beyond the provisions of the Act, as is evident from the second and third provisos to the said Section. At best, the Appellate Tribunal could have, after recording the reasons, reduced the amount of deposit of fifty per cent to an amount not less than twenty-five per cent of the debt referred to in the second proviso. We are convinced that the order of the Appellate Tribunal, entertaining appellant's appeal without insisting on pre-deposit was clearly unsustainable and, therefore, the decision of the High Court in setting aside the same cannot be flawed." (emphasis supplied) 7. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh were rei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resaid 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 has made it mandatory to deposit 7.5% or 10% of the duty amount, as the case may be. It ought to be kept in mind that the relief is granted by the law itself. Courts cannot be more charitable than the law. When the provisions of the law are explicitly clear or where the provisions of law are absolutely unambiguous, such type of pre-deposits cannot be waived by the courts. 13. In view of the amendment in the Act, especially Section 129E thereof, there is no question whatsoever of the waiver of predeposit. As stated hereinabove, the statue itself has waived 90% or 92.5% of the duty amount, as the case may be, assessed by the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner- assessee has to deposit only 7.5% or 10% (as the case may be) of the duty assessed. Thus, there is no question of further waiver of the amount which is required to be deposited under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962." (emphasis supplied) 10. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in M/s Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP v/s Additional Dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d judicial pronouncements, the prayer of the petitioner for being permitted to prosecute its appeal before the CESTAT without complying with the condition of mandatory pre-deposit, cannot be granted. There is, therefore no substance in these writ petitions which are, consequently, dismissed." 11. The same view was taken by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Diamond Entertainment Techno. P. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of CGST, Dehradun 2019 (368) E.L.T. 579 (Del.). 12. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ankit Mehta v/s Commissioner, CGST Indore W.P. No. 4557/2019 also dismissed the Writ Petition that had been filed against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for the reason that the required pre-deposit was not made. The contention that was advanced before the Tribunal and before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was that the appellant was not in a position to make the pre-deposit due to financial constraints. After examining the provisions of section 129E of the Customs Act, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as follows:- "The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear that it is mandatory for an appellant to deposit seven and a half perce....