M/S Allied INDIA Iron And Steel Private LTD Through Its Director Md Mahboob Alam vs. The Principal Commissioner C.G.S.T And Cx Ranchi

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's primary grievance was the order imposing a substantial demand and penalty, their immediate prayer before the High Court was for a waiver of the pre-deposit amount to maintain an appeal before the CESTAT. The Court noted that Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, confers power upon the appellate authority to consider applications for waiver of the pre-deposit. The Court emphasized the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute prescribes a specific manner for doing a particular act, it must be done in that manner and not otherwise, citing judgments from the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh, Babu Verghese vs. Bar Council of Kerala, State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ambay Cements & Anr., and Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. Regional Direction ESIC Hyderabad & Ors. The Court found that the petitioner had not filed any waiver application before the CESTAT and had directly approached the High Court. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to enter into the merits of the waiver application. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority for waiver under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, within three weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Allied India Iron and Steel Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order dated 23.04.2024, issued on 30.04.2024, by the Principal Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Ranchi. This order imposed a demand of Rs. 7,20,31,936/- along with applicable interest and a penalty of Rs. 7,20,31,936/- on the petitioner. The petitioner sought two main reliefs: firstly, to quash the aforementioned order, and secondly, to waive the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Bench, Kolkata, due to financial hardship. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel admitted that the order was to be challenged before the Appellate Authority but sought this Court's intervention for waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing financial difficulties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can grant a waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit amount required for filing an appeal before the CESTAT, when the statute prescribes a specific procedure for such waiver. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that due to severe financial hardship, they are unable to meet the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal before the CESTAT. They sought a waiver of this amount to enable them to pursue their appeal, relying on the judgment in Raj Jaiswal Vs. Union of India (2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 714). Respondent's Argument: The respondent (CGST) did not explicitly record arguments regarding the waiver of pre-deposit. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the statutory mechanism for seeking waiver must be followed.