Appeal Can't Be Rejected For Want Of Pre-Deposit Proof When Order Itself Records Payment: CESTAT Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 October held that an appeal cannot be rejected for non-production of proof of mandatory pre-deposit when the appellate authority itself has recorded that the required amount was deposited.

A Bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside an order rejecting an appeal filed by Amsons Tours & Travels Pvt Ltd and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits. It observed:

“Once the appellate authority had noticed the making of the pre-deposit, rejection of the appeal on the very ground of non-production of its proof was not warranted. If there was any doubt regarding the payment or the supporting document, the appellant ought to have been afforded an opportunity to clarify or furnish the same before rejecting the appeal on such ground.”

The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal for allegedly failing to furnish valid proof of the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and for not producing the requisite authorisation letter.

Amsons Tours & Travels pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) had himself recorded in the impugned order that a pre-deposit of Rs. 3,71,472 was made through an e-receipt. It argued that the appeal could not have been rejected for non-production of proof of a payment that the order itself acknowledged.

The Tribunal held that if there was any doubt regarding the payment or the supporting document, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to clarify or furnish it before the appeal was rejected.

On the authorisation letter, the appellant submitted that it had already been furnished but was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Bench held that such a procedural deficiency could not ordinarily justify dismissal of the appeal without first giving the appellant an opportunity to rectify it.

Accordingly, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to produce the necessary documents, including the authorisation letter.

Appearances: Shri Vinay Ansurkar, Advocate for the Appellant; Shri S.B.P. Sinha, Superintendent (Authorised Representative) for the Revenue.