The term 'entertain' in the context of filing an appeal refers to the stage where an authority admits a matter for consideration on its merits, not its initial registration. Consequently, an appeal cannot be refused registration solely due to the absence of pre-deposit proof upon filing.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Akanksha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue, Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the record.

2. This batch of writ petitions raises a common legal issue. Visited with a common Adjudication Order (Order- in-Original), passed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioners intend to file individual appeals, there against. They also seek opportunity to apply for waiver of the condition to pre-deposit 7.5% of the disputed demand of Custom duty/penalty, in terms of Section 129E of the Act. They have been prevented from filing such appeals, ostensibly on the objection raised that they have not pre-deposited or appended proof of deposit of 7.5% of the disputed demand of customs duty/penalty, imposed under the Order-in-Original (proposed to be assailed by them), before the appellate forum.

3. For ready reference, the facts giving rise to the issue in Writ-Tax No. 2238 of 2026 (M/S Runway Impex and another vs. Union of India and others), may be noted, in brief.

4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of import and export of betel nuts. It had entered into an agreement with one M/s Margo Impex Private Limited-for storage and warehousing of those goods, in a Free Trade Warehousing Zone. On 29.10.2024, a Show Cause Notice (in short 'SCN') was issued to the petitioner, proposing to confiscate the goods imported by it. The petitioner participated in the proceedings and submitted its reply. However, by order dated 28.11.2025, the objections raised have been rejected, and a disputed demand of penalty of Rs.3,91,82,273/- has been imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114(AA) of the Act.

5. To 'entertain' an appeal against that order, the petitioner is required to pre-deposit 7.5% of that penalty demand. It would amount to Rs.29,38,670.47/-.

6. In the above facts, the petitioner has disclosed that it has been prematurely prevented from filing its appeal, for reason of that pre-deposit not made and/or for lack of proof of such pre-deposit-submitted with its memorandum of appeal. Voicing this grievance, the writ petition has been filed, seeking the following relief:

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to waive of the mandatory pre-deposit amount deposited for filing of the appeal;

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the petitioners' Waiver Application filed alongwith his appeal (Irfan vs. Joint Commissioner, Customs Commissionerate, Noida) before the respondent no.2 against the Order- in-Original No. 51/JC/NOIDA-CUS/2026-26 dated 28.11.2025, in view of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Tax no. 5866 of 2025."

7. First, no waiver may be granted by this Court, at this stage, unless there exists a proceeding in the nature of an appeal, registered with the appeal authority, with respect to which waiver may be prayed for. Yet, it has been asserted by learned counsel for the revenue, unless the petitioner makes pre-deposit @ 7.5% of the disputed demand of penalty etc. involved, its appeal may never be entertained i.e. registered, in view of the clear language of Section 129E of the Act.

8. In such circumstances, we had granted opportunity to learned counsel for the revenue to complete his instru