IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.Nos.43692 & 43693 of 2025 Dover India Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Prakash Indoria, General Manager S.No.385/ID. No.33, Mavalurkuppam B Village Pazhanchur, Chennai – 600056. ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Commissioner of (Appeals-II)

Newry Towers: No.2054-1 II Avenue: Anna Nagar Chennai – 600040.

2. Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Tax Poonamallee Division, Chennai Outer Commissionerate R-40, A-1, 100 Feet Road, Mogappair, 2nd Floor, Chennai – 600037. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order no. 107/2024 dated 23.08.2024 with the DIN: 20240859KU000083928A on the files of Respondent No.1 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Shiva Kumar For M/s.S.Thvija For Respondents : Mr.Rajendran Raghavan Senior Standing Counsel

ORDER

Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the time of admission.

3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order-In-Appeal No. 107/2024, dated 23.08.2024 passed by the 1^st respondent as an appellate authority. Although the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Order-In-Appeal No. 107/2024, dated 23.08.2024 passed by the

1^st respondent.

4. By the impugned Order-In-Appeal No.107/2024, dated 23.08.2024, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not made the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to appeals under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.

5. Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is reproduced hereunder:

“[Section 35F. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal. -

The Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) , as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal -

( i ) under sub-section (1) of section 35, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of a decision or an order passed by an officer of Central Excise lower in rank than the 2 [Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise ];

(ii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 35B, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against;

(iii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 35B, unless the appellant has deposited ten per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against:

Provided that the amount required to be deposited under this section shall not exceed rupees ten crores:

Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the stay applications and appeals pending before any appellate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section "duty demanded"

shall include, -

( i ) amount determined under section11D;

(ii) amount of erroneous Cenvat credit taken;

(iii) amount payable under rule 6 of the Cenvat CreditRules, 2001 or the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 or the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.]”

6. A reading of