HC : Cannot dismiss appeal for non-deposit of prescribed duty/penalty within limitation period

HC overrules Single Judge Bench, holds dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on ground that prescribed mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% penalty was made after expiry of limitation as ‘unsustainable’, when appeal filed within condonable period, i.e. within 90 days from date of receipt of order-in-original; Accepts assessee’s submission that Single Judge Bench failed to appreciate a perceptible difference between 'presentation of appeal' and 'entertainment of appeal' appearing in proviso to Section 128(1) and Section 129E(i) of Customs Act respectively; Observes, “if the first proviso to Section 128 (1) and Section 129 E, are harmoniously construed, then, one would have to hold that, if an appeal is presented within the time, which is the original period of limitation or, within the condonable period of thirty days, then, it can only be entertained even if the appellant makes the prescribed mandatory pre-deposit thereafter”; Remarks, ordinary meaning of word “presenting” or “presentation” could only mean 'any action or instance of lodgement of appeal', while “entertain” would mean 'give attention to or consideration to the matter'; Distinguishing Full Bench decision in E.P. Nawab Marakkadai, HC directs Revenue to follow procedure prescribed in Circular dated October 14, 2014 thereby granting at least 3 opportunities to appellant to produce evidence in support of pre-deposit : Madras HC