2026 (5) TMI 1659

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....G.H., for respondent. 2. This intra-Court appeal is preferred by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 25012 of 2023, dated 17.04.2025. The respondent herein had filed the writ petition assailing the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) Appellate Commissioner, whereby the appeal was rejected on the ground of non-payment of the statutory pre-deposit of 7.5% as mandated under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, "the Act"). 3. The respondent was issued a show-cause notice on various issues, which culminated in an order of adjudication dated 24.08.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. Learned counsel further submits that the issues adjudicated in the order-in-original were the subject matter of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short, "SVLDR Scheme"), pursuant to which a discharge certificate was issued, and that the very same issues were again made the subject matter of the show-cause notice and adjudicated against the respondent. 5.1 Learned counsel would further submit that, if the amounts paid pursuant to the discharge certificate issued under the SVLDR Scheme are taken into consideration, the amount so paid is far in excess of the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% required under Section 35F of the Act. It is contended that the Appellate Commissioner committed an error in not taking in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4.08.2022. 9. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge committed an error in quashing the order-in-original at Annexure-E dated 24.08.2022. 10. Insofar as the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Appellate Commissioner is concerned, we note that the respondent-assessee has contended that the amounts paid pursuant to the discharge certificate issued under the SVLDR Scheme satisfies the requirement of the statutory pre-deposit of 7.5%. To address such contention, the Appellate Commissioner is required to examine the appeal on merits. At the same time, the requirement of a mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% cannot be dispensed with. 11. Having regard to the peculiar facts involved in the pr....