Case Law Details
This Larger Bench has been constituted for resolving the issue as to quantum of mandatory deposit in the case of 2nd appeal preferred before the Tribunal against Commissioner (Appeals) order.
2. The issue in dispute is whether an appellant has to pay 10% mandatory deposit over and above the mandatory deposit of 7.5% of the duty liability/penalties, as the case may be, as provided under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The dispute arises due to different orders of the Tribunal more specifically, Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balajee Structural (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur held impliedly deposit of 10% of the amount of duty and penalty as the case may be for preferring an appeal before the Tribunal against Commissioner (Appeals) order is inclusive of 7.5% deposited at the time of preferring appeal before the first appellate authority from the adjudication order, while the Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. and ors. – 2016- TIOL-3050- CESTAT-Kol and ASR Multimetals Pvt. Ltd. and ors – 2016-TIOL- 3154-CESTAT-Ahm. held that pre-deposit of 10% of the amount of the duty and penalty and as the case may be needs to be deposited over and above the amount mandated to be deposited before the first appellate authority. ~3. None appeared on behalf of the Bar Associations despite notices. Shri Joseph K. Antony, Advocate from Indirect Taxes Bar Association, Chennai filed a written submission which are considered.
4. Learned D.R. Shri Amresh Jain/Shri Govind Dixit appeared on behalf of Revenue and submitted that the plain reading of provisions indicate that the appellant if he wants to prefer a 2nd appeal has to deposit additional 10% of the amount of duty/penalty as the case may be, over and above the amount of mandatory deposit made for preferring appeal before the first appellate authority. It is the submission that the pre-deposit before first appellate authority and second appellate authority are independent. He would take us through the decision of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ASR Multimetals Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He would also rely upon the CBEC Circular No. 984/8/2014 dated 16.09.2014 for the same preposition.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
