Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Deposit Requirement in Central Excise Appeals

Introduction:

In the case of Kantilal Bhaguji Mohite v. Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax-Pune III [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. (s). 11203/2019 dated February 14, 2024], the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Bombay High Court.

Background:

The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s order that denied waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit condition for filing a statutory appeal.

Argument Raised:

The petitioner argued that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) lacked the authority to dismiss the appeal without adjudicating on its merits simply because the condition imposed by Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding obtaining interim stay or relief against recovery, was not met.

Bombay High Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court rejected the petitioner’s argument, emphasizing that the petitioner sought adjudication on merits without fulfilling the pre-deposit condition.

Writ Jurisdiction Clarified:

The High Court highlighted that writ jurisdiction is not intended to benefit parties like the petitioner or enable them to circumvent the statutory pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal, as mandated by Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act.

Supreme Court’s Decision:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter, affirming the importance of complying with the pre-deposit condition outlined in the Central Excise Act for the adjudication of appeals before the Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals).