Ambaa And Co vs. The Commissioner (Appeals)

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had now complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to appeals under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, by making the necessary deposits. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 19.02.2025. The Court further directed that the appeal, bearing No.126/2023-ST (Madurai), against the order in Original No.10/ST/Ac/2017 dated 25.03.2017, be restored on the file of the first respondent. The first respondent was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner. The amount paid on 19.02.2024 was to be treated as the pre-deposit. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ambaa and Co., represented by its Proprietress, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). This is the third round of litigation. Previous writ petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed with liberty to avail alternative remedies and were granted time to file statutory appeals. The petitioner was required to deposit 7.5% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to appeals under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Initially, there was a deficit in the pre-deposit amount, but the petitioner subsequently made a further deposit, thereby complying with the mandatory requirement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent (Commissioner (Appeals)) is cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, thereby warranting quashing? 2. Whether the first respondent should be directed to take up the appeal filed in A.No.126/2023-ST (Madurai) afresh on merits and in accordance with law? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction. They sought to quash this order and requested the first respondent to re-adjudicate their appeal on merits. The petitioner also contended that they had now complied with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to appeals under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents.