2011 (2) TMI 1071 - AT - Customs

Pre-deposit of the penalty - Held that - Deposit as one made on behalf of Rafiq Tinwala, the appellant in appeal No. C/863/2009 penalty on him amounts to Rs. 14 lakhs and its 15% is Rs. 2.1 lakhs which stands deposited. Ramesh Agarwal, appellant in appeal No. C/842/2009 cosidering his application for extension of time & that he deposited Rs.1.25 lakhs allow him further period of eight weeks for pre-depositing the balance amount. As for appeal Nos. C/1001/09-Mum. & C/1250/2009-Mum no evidence of pre-deposit, nor any representation. Both the appeals get dismissed for want of compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act.

Summary

Issues: Failure to pre-deposit penalty amount; Extension of time for pre-deposit; Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, involved multiple issues. Firstly, the appellants were directed to pre-deposit 15% of the penalty amount within a specified time frame. In the case of one appellant, only partial pre-deposit was made, with confusion regarding the depositor clarified by the Tribunal. Another appellant requested an extension of time for the balance amount due to financial constraints, which was granted by the Tribunal after considering the circumstances. Secondly, the Tribunal granted an extension of time for pre-deposit to one appellant based on their financial situation, allowing them additional weeks to comply. Lastly, in the case of two other appellants, there was a complete failure to pre-deposit the required amount, leading to the dismissal of their appeals due to non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act.

The first issue addressed by the Tribunal concerned the failure of the appellants to pre-deposit the penalty amount as directed. In one instance, the confusion regarding the depositor was resolved by attributing the deposit to the correct appellant, ensuring compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. However, in the case of two other appellants, there was a complete lack of evidence of pre-deposit, leading to the dismissal of their appeals. This highlights the importance of complying with pre-deposit orders to proceed with the appeals.

The second issue involved the extension of time for pre-deposit requested by one appellant. Despite facing financial difficulties with a low monthly income, the appellant deposited a partial amount and sought additional time to pay the balance. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances and hearing the arguments, granted an extension of eight weeks for the appellant to complete the pre-deposit, emphasizing the need to balance compliance with the financial constraints faced by the appellant.

The final issue revolved around the dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act by two appellants. The Tribunal noted the absence of any evidence of pre-deposit or representation for these appellants, leading to the dismissal of their appeals. This decision underscores the significance of adhering to statutory requirements to maintain the validity of appeals and proceed with legal proceedings effectively.