2013 (5) TMI 806 - HC - Customs

Duty demand - Demand of interest - Waiver of pre deposit - Tribunal asked for 25% of duty demand - Held that - no case has been made out so as to make interference in the impugned order passed by the CESTAT which has not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. The order is a discretionary one and when facts and circumstances of the case have been considered by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, such interim order does not call for interference by way of judicial review by this Court. We find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. No perversity or patent illegality is apparent in the order passed by the CESTAT. - It makes obligatory on the appellant to deposit the duty or penalty, pending the appeal, failing which the Appellate Tribunal is fully competent to reject the appeal. Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice, the principle of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudication. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant. The proviso to Section 129E gives discretion to the authority to dispense with the obligation to deposit in case of undue hardship. However, discretion must be exercised on relevant materials and exercised in a bona fide and objective manner. In case there is no undue hardship, High Court should not interfere in judicial review. - However, time to make the re deposit is extended - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal regarding payment of duty and interest imposed by Commissioner of Customs.
Validity of order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Interpretation of Customs Act provisions regarding presentation of bill of entry and duty payment.
Applicability of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
Compliance with the order for pre-deposit of duty amount.

Analysis:

1. Payment of Duty and Interest:
The appeal raised concerns about the duty and interest imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant was directed to pay a specific duty amount along with interest under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order was challenged before the CESTAT, which directed a partial waiver of 75% and instructed a 25% pre-deposit by a certain date. This decision was upheld by the Single Judge, leading to the intra Court appeal.

2. Interpretation of Customs Act Provisions:
The appellant argued that the presentation of bills of entry was not crucial since the goods were imported during the validity period of the import license. They contended that the duty should not be higher due to a delay in presenting the bill of entry after the license's expiration. However, the respondent emphasized the importance of timely bill of entry presentation as per Sections 68 and 69 of the Customs Act for determining the duty payable.

3. Applicability of Sick Industrial Companies Act:
Regarding the appellant's status as a sick industry under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Court referred to previous judgments to establish that the protection under this Act does not extend to duty liabilities under the Customs Act. The appellant's argument of being a sick industry was not considered a valid reason for interference in the case.

4. Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order:
The Court reviewed the order of the CESTAT and found no grounds for interference, citing the principles outlined by the Supreme Court regarding the obligation to deposit duty or penalty pending an appeal. It was concluded that the Tribunal acted appropriately, and the appellant was directed to make the pre-deposit within a specified timeframe to proceed with the appeal.

5. Final Disposition:
After a thorough analysis of the arguments presented, the Court decided not to interfere with the CESTAT's order. The appeal was disposed of with directions for the appellant to comply with the pre-deposit requirement within a specified period for the appeal to be reinstated and heard by the Tribunal. The application related to the appeal was also disposed of, and no costs were awarded in the case.

By following the legal principles and considering the specific circumstances of the case, the Court provided a detailed and reasoned judgment on each issue raised during the appeal process.