The Delhi High Court has quashed the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by which appeal was returned for non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as pre-deposit had been made under GST Act.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that the appeal could not have been rejected merely on the ground that it was deposited on a wrong account especially when the said integrated portal was not even available for the Petitioner at the time of the initial deposit.
The petitioner challenged the order by which the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has returned the appeal due to non-compliance of the pre-deposit condition mandated under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The pre-deposit was made by the Petitioner way back on 13th August, 2018 and 17th August, 2018 itself for a sum of Rs. 1,60,600/- and Rs. 4,750/- respectively. The Petitioner has also submitted the challans showing the deposit.
The ground taken in the impugned order is that the same was deposited in a wrong account and therefore credit cannot be given of the pre-deposit and hence the appeal does not deserve consideration on merits.
The petitioner contended that GST was recently enacted at the time of payment, and that there was considerable uncertainty and confusion with respect to levied rate of taxes, modes of payment.
The Petitioner, has pointed out the instructions given by the Ministry of Finance, as per which, the CBIC has clarified that the pre-deposits have to be made in the integrated portal.
The court noted the fact that 7.5% was initially deposited before the Commissioner (Appeals) at that time when the integrated portal did not exist. Thereafter, while approaching the CESTAT, the remaining 2.5% has been deposited by the Petitioner. Thus, in effect the entire 10% which is the pre-deposit amount, stood deposited.
The court directed that the appeal would now be heard by CESTAT on merits without any further deposit being insisted upon. The deposit already made shall be treated as satisfaction of the pre-deposit condition.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S Dd Interiors Versus Commissioner Of Service Tax & Anr
Case No.: W.P.(C) 877/2025 &CM APPL. 4241/2025
Date: 21st February, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Ruchir Bhatia
Counsel For Respondent: Atul Tripathi
