TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 relating to pre-deposit in order to avail the remedy of appeal. The provisions are similar to the provisions of section 129E of the Customs Act. The Supreme Court emphasised that when a Statue confers a right to appeal, conditions can be imposed for exercising of such a right and unless the condition precedent for filing appeal is fulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that deposit under the second proviso to section 18(1) of the Act, being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in entertaining the appeal. Thus, appeal is held to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be listed on November 03, 2021. On November 03, 2021 on the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the matter was directed to be listed on November 29, 2021 to enable the appellant to make the pre-deposit. 3. Despite all the aforesaid orders, the appellant did not make the pre-deposit and when the matter was taken up on November 29, 2011, the following order was passed. This appeal has been filed against imposition of duty amounting to ₹ 3,58,00,851/- and accordingly appellant is required to pay pre-deposit of ₹ 10,74,025.53. Further, fine and penalty has also been imposed. The appellant have earlier sought time for three occasions, which have been allowed. Today, when the matter was called, first time, ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns can be imposed for exercising of such a right and unless the condition precedent for filing appeal is fulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that deposit under the second proviso to section 18(1) of the Act, being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in entertaining the appeal. The Supreme Court also held that the Appellate Tribunal could not have granted waiver of pre-deposit beyond the provisions of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: 7. Section 18(1) of the Act confers a statutory right on a person aggrieved by any order made by the by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be said to be onerous. Thus, we hold that the requirement of pre-deposit under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act is mandatory and there is no reason whatsoever for not giving full effect to the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. In that view of the matter, no court, much less the Appellate Tribunal, a creature of the Act itself, can refuse to give full effect to the provisions of the Statute. We have no hesitation in holding that deposit under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal under the said Section, the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in entertaining the appeal without directing the appellant to comply with the said mandatory requirement. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (emphasis supplied) 7. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited vs. Ambuj A.Kasiwal Ors. [ Civil Appeal No. 539 of 2021 decided on 16.02.2021 ] 8. In this connection, it will also be appropriate to refer to a decision of the Delhi High Court in Dish TV India Limited vs. Union of India Ors. [ W.P. (C) 4960 of 2020 decided on 06.08.2020 ], wherein the requirement of pre-deposit under section 129E of the Customs Act also came up for consideration. The High Court held that when the Statue itself has provided wavier of pre-deposit to the extent of 90% or 92.5% of the duty amount and has made it mand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
