2015 (6) TMI 1083 - HC - Customs

Restoration of appeal - appeal dismissed earlier on account of non-payment of pre-deposit - amount of pre-deposit duly deposited and proof of deposit presented - Held that - the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order-in-original for non-payment of the 7.5% of the duty demanded as per the amendment dated 6-8-2014. Now that the petitioner has complied with the said mandatory condition of pre-deposit vide TR-6 Challan Bearing No. 001681, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer. Pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded is a mandatory stipulation and this appellate authority has no powers to relax or go by a case law, which is not on this provision of law directly. Petition disposed off - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against an impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)-I for non-payment of pre-deposit.
2. Seeking direction for hearing and disposal of appeal on merits.
3. Objections raised by the standing counsel for the respondents.
4. Consideration of the appeal and compliance with mandatory pre-deposit condition.

Analysis:

1. The Writ Petition challenged the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)-I, which dismissed the appeal for non-payment of the pre-deposit of 7.5% of the demand as per the amendment that came into force on 6-8-2014. The petitioner had initially failed to make the pre-deposit but later deposited the entire 7.5% demanded amount. The petitioner sought direction for the appeal to be heard and disposed of on merits, as per the compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit condition.

2. The standing counsel for the respondents raised two objections. Firstly, it was argued that the petitioner, who did not make the pre-deposit while filing the appeal, should have approached the revisional authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, instead of seeking relief through the Writ Petition. Secondly, the counsel contended that the petitioner should only approach the revisional authority against the impugned order, rather than seeking redressal through the current proceedings.

3. The Court found no impediment for the petitioner to seek direction for the first appeal to be heard, as the petitioner had not faced any order on merits from the appellate authority. The impugned order highlighted the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit requirement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, since the petitioner had subsequently complied with the pre-deposit condition, the Court accepted the prayer and directed the second respondent to consider the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

4. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the petitioner had fulfilled the mandatory pre-deposit condition, as evidenced by the TR-6 Challan. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction for the appeal to be considered on its merits. The compliance with the pre-deposit requirement led to the resolution of the issue, and the Court closed the related miscellaneous petition without imposing any costs.