2014 (9) TMI 1091 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty - in the Stay Order dated 28.04.14, no specific direction to any of the Appellants, was made, as to who would deposit the said amount amongst the Appellants, resulting into confusion and non-compliance with the said Order - Held that - I direct Shri Dharmendra Kumar Jha to predeposit ₹ 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) and 10% of the penalty imposed against each of the other Appellants, within a period of four weeks from today, and report compliance directly to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who, after recording the compliance, would proceed with the appeals for decision on merit, afresh, without insisting any further predeposit - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of predeposit of penalty for multiple appellants.
2. Imposition of penalty on proprietorship firm and proprietor.
3. Compliance with predeposit directive for appeal hearing.
4. Request for early disposal of goods in custody.

Issue 1: Waiver of predeposit of penalty for multiple appellants
The Applicants filed applications seeking waiver of predeposit of penalty. The Advocate for the Applicants argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not decide the issue on merit but dismissed the appeals for failure to deposit a specified amount. It was contended that a consolidated amount was directed to be deposited without specifying who would deposit it. The Advocate offered to make a predeposit for one of the Applicants and a percentage of the penalty for the others. The Revenue had no objection to remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty on proprietorship firm and proprietor
The Advocate for the Applicants argued that the imposition of penalty on both the Applicant as a Proprietor and the Proprietorship Firm was illegal as they are considered the same entity. The Advocate offered to make predeposits for the Applicants and requested a remittance of the Appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit.

Issue 3: Compliance with predeposit directive for appeal hearing
The Judicial Member noted that the Appeals could be disposed of at that stage with the consent of both sides. It was observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merit but dismissed the appeals due to non-compliance with the predeposit directive. The Advocate offered to make predeposits for the Applicants, which was considered reasonable, and directed the Applicants to comply within a specified timeframe.

Issue 4: Request for early disposal of goods in custody
The Advocate requested a direction for the early disposal of goods in the custody of the Department, citing deterioration. The Revenue had no objection, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to take reasonable steps to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of the Order.

This judgment allowed the Appeals by way of remand, with the directive for predeposits, compliance reporting, and a fresh decision on merit by the Commissioner (Appeals). Additionally, a direction was given for the early disposal of goods in custody.