Appeal dismissed for wrong-portal pre-deposit may be restored upon compliant ICEGATE payment.

The petitioner, a civil contractor registered with the Service Tax Department, challenged an order passed by the Superintendent, Service Tax, Haldwani, under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, but the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The petitioner contended that the required pre-deposit of ₹56,650 had in fact been made on 13 July 2022, but through the GST portal rather than the ICEGATE portal prescribed for such payments. The petitioner characterized this as an inadvertent mistake arising from ambiguity regarding the applicable payment procedure.

The respondents submitted that the prescribed payment was required to be made through the ICEGATE portal. However, on instructions, the respondents stated that they had no objection to the petitioner making the prescribed pre-deposit through ICEGATE and thereafter seeking restoration of the appeal. Any refund of the amount deposited through the incorrect portal was to be considered separately in accordance with law.

The Court considered Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, under which the service-tax demand order had been passed.

By virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellate pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to the petitioner’s appeal.

The prescribed mode for making the pre-deposit was payment through the ICEGATE portal in accordance with the applicable CBIC circulars and instructions.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that, where the requisite statutory payment can still be made and the department does not oppose reconsideration, an appeal dismissed for procedural non-compliance may be restored subject to fulfillment of the prescribed condition. Refund of an amount deposited through an incorrect portal was left to the competent authority for determination in accordance with law.

The Court noted that the petitioner claimed to have deposited the required amount, but through a portal different from the one prescribed by CBIC.

Although the Court did not conclusively hold that the GST-portal payment amounted to valid compliance with Section 35F, it took note of the respondents’ concession that the petitioner could make a fresh pre-deposit through ICEGATE and seek restoration of the appeal.

Accordingly, rather than adjudicating the appeal-pre-deposit issue finally, the Court adopted a procedural remedy balancing compliance with the statutory payment requirement and the petitioner’s right to have the appeal considered on merits. The question of refund of the earlier payment was appropriately separated and left for consideration by the competent authority under applicable law.

If the deposit and restoration application were made within four weeks from 31 August 2026, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide the restoration application within the following four weeks.

The petitioners were also permitted to submit appropriate refund applications concerning the amounts deposited through DRC-03/the incorrect portal, which were to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.