The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act is mandatory, with limited discretion for waiver in exceptional circumstances, reaffirmed by recent judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 7th January, 2025 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter “CESTAT”) by which the appeal of the Appellant has been rejected on the ground that the pre-deposit has not been made by the Appellant.

Factual Background

3. The brief facts of the case are that during the relevant period between 2017 and 2018 the Petitioner had filed seven Bills of Entry for import of LED TVs and three Bills of Entry for import of brass ceramic cartridges. It is stated that the said Bills of Entry were assessed and cleared by the Customs Department. However, in respect of another Bill of Entry 3rd May, 2018 importing LED TV, the Petitioner is stated to have inadvertently classified the same as spare parts. The same were reassessed and pursuant to the same investigation was conducted on the ground of under-valuation and underdeclaration of the imported goods.

4. In respect of the said investigation a Show Cause Notice dated 4th October, 2022 was issued to the Petitioner and pursuant to the same the Orderin-Original came to be passed on 29th September, 2023. Vide the said order the Department has rejected the declared value of the imported goods, raised differential duty and imposed penalty on the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

“ORDER (i) I reject the declared Value of Rs.3,80,57,935/- (Rupees Three Crore Eighty Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Five only) in the said 10 (7+3) Bills of Entry, as mentioned in Annexure-A and B to the SCN, under Rule 12(1) of the CVR, 2007 and re-determined the assessable value as Rs.10,85,27,483/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Three only) under Rule 5 of CVR, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Act;

(ii) I determine the differential duty amounting to Rs.3,18,48,890/- (Rupees Three Crores Eighteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety only), as detailed in Annexure-A and Annexure-B of the SCN, under Section 28(8) of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 and the same is recoverable from M/s Tecmax Electronic along with applicable interest thereon under Section 28AA of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962.

(iii) I imposed Penalty of Rs.3,18,48,890/- (Rupees Three Crores Eighteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety only), upon M/s Tecmax Electronic under Sections 114A of the CUSTOMS ACT . 1962 as explained in para 5.9.4 above. The Noticee will be entitled to get the benefit of reduced penalty as provided in Section 114A of CUSTOMS ACT , 1962;

(iv) I imposed Penalty of Rs, 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only), upon M/s Tecmax Electronic under Sections 114AA of the CUSTOMS ACT . 1962 as explained in paras 5.9.5 to 5.9.7 above.”

5. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner before CESTAT on 3rd May, 2024 and vide the impugned order the appeal of the Petitioner has been dismissed as under:

“On 11.09.2024, the learned counsel has sought two months time to make the pre deposit which was granted and the matter i was listed on 12.11.2024, further, once again, request was made to grant two months time and the matter was directed to be listed on 07.01.2025. In the order dated 12.11.2024, it was mentioned that in the event the deposit is not made the Bench may pass the I appropriate order. Today, the learned counsel submits that they have approached the High Court by e-filing. However, as on today, there is no order by the High Court in favour of the appellant.

2. We are constrained to pass the order, dismissing the present appeal for not making the pre deposit. The appeal, is. accordingly I dismissed.”

6. Aggrieved by the impugned order of CESTAT the Petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

Submissions of the Parties

7. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the total demand raised against the Appel