By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 16, 2019: THE Commissioner(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit provided under Section 35F of the CEA, 1944 had not been complied with by the assessee.

The Single Member Bench observed that it is in complete agreement with such rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Nonetheless, the Bench noted that in view of the appellant's claim that they had made a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed amount before filing of the appeal in the Tribunal, the ends of justice would be met for consideration of appeal in favour of the appellant.

However, since the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merits, the matter needed to be remanded for this purpose.

The aforesaid observations were recorded,solely based upon the submissions made by the appellant.

However, on perusal of the case records, the Bench did not find any evidence provided by the appellant in support of the stand that the requirement of Section 35F of the CE Act had been duly complied with.

It was, therefore, observed -

+ It seems that the appellant is very casual in its approach for seeking appellate remedy for resolving its dispute.

+ It is expected that the person seeking justice from the appellate forum, should come forward with clean and clear evidences on facts, inasmuch as, appreciation of evidence is the domain of the original authority, who alleges the wrong doings of the assessee.

+ The appellate body can only decide the issue based on the findings recorded by the lower authority(s) and on the basis of documents available before it.

+ However, it transpires from the present proceedings that the appellant has not pursued its statutory remedy of appeal diligently. To discourage the uncaring attitude in filing appeal in just and casual manner before the appellate body, I am of the view that some cost should be imposed on the present appellant, for meeting the ends of justice.

The Bench directed the appellant to deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- in Prime Minister's Relief Fund within a period of four weeks and upon showing compliance of such deposit, the Commissioner (Appeals) would take up the appeal for a decision on merits.

The appeal was disposed of in above terms.

In passing: Can payment be ordered to PM's Relief Fund?

(See 2019-TIOL-198-CESTAT-MUM)