Frozen Bank Account No Ground to Waive Mandatory Pre-Deposit | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E
Case Details: R.R. Overseas vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VII (2026) 38 Centax 298 (Mad.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
  • Shri B. Sathish Sundar, for the Petitioner.
  • Shri Siddharth Bhandari, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, engaged in export transactions and having availed duty drawback under Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3 of the Customs Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, faced recovery proceedings on the allegation of non-submission of proof of export realisation. An order was passed confirming the demand, against which the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 128 and sought waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E on the ground that its bank account had been frozen. The appellate authority rejected the waiver request and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable for non-payment of pre-deposit. The petitioner relied on Famina Knit Fabs v. Union of India [2020 (371) E.L.T. 97 (P & H)]. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that pre-deposit under Section 129E is mandatory and cannot be waived merely because the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen. Following Dream Castle v. Union of India [2016 (43) S.T.R. 25 (Mad.)], it observed that the right of appeal is statutory and subject to conditions imposed by the legislature. The Court held that no equitable exception could be carved out to dilute the mandatory requirement. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to make the statutory pre-deposit within the stipulated time, upon which the appeal was to be revived and heard on merits; failing compliance, the dismissal order would stand confirmed.

List of Cases Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *