TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- imposed on the appellant by the impugned order. 2. As per section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a percentage of the confirmed duty or penalty has to be deposited by the person filing the appeal. It reads as follows: 35F. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal.--The Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal- (i) under sub-section (1) of Section 35, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of a decision or an order passed by an officer of Central Excise lower in ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e matter is listed today for hearing about this defect. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative of the Revenue and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: (i) The appellant was not an assessee and hence had no excise registration number. If he had to pay the pre-deposit, he would have had to take a dummy registration number only for the purpose of paying the pre-deposit. (ii) The appellant had, at any rate, not acted on his own but all his alleged acts and omissions were as an employee of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee has correctly made the pre-deposit. (iii) The amount of penalty imposed (Rs. 1,00,00,000/-) is very large a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the absence of such a pre-deposit, the Tribunal shall not entertain the appeal. There is no scope under the law for one person to make a pre-deposit to enable another person to pursue his appeal on this basis. For this reason, in Sharafat Hussain, this Tribunal refused to entertain the appeal because the deposit was not made by Sharafat Hussain but by someone else. This decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court which is the jurisdictional Court of the Principal Bench at Delhi. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had not acted independently but only as an employee of M/s Montage Enterprises and for this reason, it made the pre-deposit on behalf of the appellant. He also pointed out that it would be too difficult for the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the issue of adjustment would not arise. It has further and in light of the express language of Section 129E of the 1962 Act found no justification to accede to the prayer made by the appellant and has assigned the following reasons in support of that conclusion :- "5. It is evident from the above section that the legal requirement is that the appellant has to make the mandatory pre-deposit failing which the appeal cannot be admitted at all by this Tribunal. Of course, if during the course of investigation or at any time before filing the appeal, the appellant had deposited any amounts, such amounts would qualify as pre-deposit for the reason that of the total amount of duty confirmed or penalty imposed on the appellant in the impugned....