TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Show-cause-cum-Demand Notice but subsequently it got necessary relief from the Commissioner (Appeals) on 31.05.2021 in an appeal preferred by it that set aside the confirmed demand of Rs. 4,44,968/- alongwith interest and other penalties. While filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), in compliance to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944, equally applicable to Service Tax matters, appellant had paid 7.5% of duty towards pre-deposit that is required under this statute as mandatory for filing of the appeal and upon appeal being decided in its favour, it sought for refund of the said amount with applicable interest. That 7.5% amount which was worked out to Rs. 33,373/- was deposited by appellant through DRC-03 challan on 15.05.2021, which challan was meant for filing of appeal in GST matters and on this sole ground, refund of pre-deposit was denied to the appellant by the Refund Sanctioning Authority. 3. Assessee Appellant therein challenged the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) appellant Department, who was the Respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals), has file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the appeal is accepted and finalized by the higher authority, it is obvious that he higher Appellate Authority accepted the pre deposit made in the form of DRC 03. Whenever in a case the judgments of higher Courts are cited the court is bound to consider the judgment of higher courts and to follow the same in principle. This is called the doctrine of Judicial Discipline. It amounts to judicial indiscipline if the lower court does not follow the judgments of higher courts even if they are put before the Court for their consideration. In the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kamlakashi Finance Corporation Ltd - AIR (1992) 711 (SC), it was stated that "it cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decision of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is filed much below the threshold prescribed for filing of the appeal as contained in instruction under F. No. 390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019, to which he responded in referring to the Appeal Memorandum content referred in para 13 and para 14 that permits the Revenue Department to continue with the appeal and contest the issues involving substantial question of law as prescribed in para 1.3 of instruction dated 17.08.2011 in F.No. 390/Misc.163/2010-JC. To him, it authorised them to continue with the appeal against an adverse judgment relating the Notification/Instruction/Order or Circular that has been held illegal or ultra-virus, but in the instant case, the said circular of 16.09.2014 has not been held as ultra-virus. Further the CBIC Circular/Instruction on Service Tax issued vide F.No. 240137/14/2022-ST on dated 28.10.2022 that guides the Department not to accept pre-deposit in Service Tax & Excise matters if paid under DRC-3 challan, on which Department has placed its reliance, has been held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court on dated 28.08.2024 as applicable only post facto and not retrospectively, while confirming the order passed by this Tribunal on dated 07.07.2023 in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g payment made through any improper challan, if any. There is series of judgments available on this issue concerning failure to make pre-deposit due to improper maintenance of integrated Portal for making such deposits after introduction of Goods and Service Tax region. Even Hon'ble Bombay High Court had given instruction to the Board in the case of SODEXO India Services (P) Ltd Vs. Union of India (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 11975) that to avoid confusion being crept in for improper legal provision to accept payment of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 through DRC-3, a clear instruction should have been issued by the Board and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DD Interiors Vs Commissioner of Service Tax & Another in W.P.(C) 877/2025 & CM Appeal No. 4241/2025 passed on dated 21.02.2025 had reiterated its earlier finding made on dated 23.01.2025 that a mere deposit in the wrong account, that to, when the Integrated Portal might not have been fully functional or the existence of the same was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, cannot result in even rejection of the appeal on the ground of defects. However, in the instant case appeal was admitted for h....