Ganesh Mankar vs. Customs Central Excise And Service Tax

Held

The Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Tribunal for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, was justified. The Court reasoned that Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, clearly mandates the deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded or penalty imposed before an appeal can be entertained. Unlike the Central Excise Act, the Customs Act, 1962, does not empower the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court to waive this pre-deposit, even in cases of financial hardship. The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the petitioner, noting that they were either under the Central Excise Act or did not have binding precedent for the current situation. The Court also referred to its own previous orders in similar matters (WP No. 4557/2019, WP No. 18996/2017, WP No. 24164/2018) which upheld the dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with Section 129E. Therefore, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Ganesh Mankar, filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against an order passed by the Customs and Service Tax Excise Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had sought to appeal an order passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise. The High Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had placed reliance on a previous order of the same court (OTA No. 04/2019) which had upheld a similar dismissal by the Tribunal. The present appeal was also disposed of in terms of that earlier order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that a similar appeal had been allowed by the Tribunal in another matter, implying the pre-deposit requirement should not arise in their case. They also relied on various High Court judgments (Indian School of Business, I.T.C. Ltd., Shubh Impex, M/s. Venus Rubbers, Shukla Brothers) where pre-deposit amounts were waived or reduced, or where the appeals were allowed despite financial constraints. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (Revenue) implicitly argued that the statutory provision of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, mandates pre-deposit and that the Tribunal and High Court have no power to waive it. They relied on previous High Court orders dismissing similar petitions, including those that highlighted the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit and the lack of power to waive it under the Customs Act, 1962.