M/S Shrinathji Business Venture P. LTD. vs. Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shrinathji Business Venture P. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi. The CESTAT had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur. The latter order confirmed a demand of service tax and imposed a penalty on the petitioner. The CESTAT's dismissal was based on the petitioner's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner intended to comply with the pre-deposit requirement but was currently unable to do so, requesting the appeal be kept pending before the Tribunal.

Held

The High Court held that the CESTAT was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The reasoning was that the petitioner had failed to comply with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit. The Court found no grounds for interference with the CESTAT's order, as the failure to meet a statutory pre-condition for appeal, such as pre-deposit, renders the appeal liable for dismissal. The ratio decidendi is that statutory requirements for filing an appeal, including pre-deposit, must be strictly adhered to, and non-compliance leads to the dismissal of the appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit, as per the relevant provisions of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Procedure Rules? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that while they intended to comply with the pre-deposit requirement, they were presently unable to do so. They sought for their appeal to be kept pending before the Tribunal, implying a request for leniency or an opportunity to comply. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent (Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise-Jaipur I). However, the CESTAT's decision, which was upheld by the High Court, indicates that the revenue's position was that non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement warrants dismissal of the appeal.