2015 (1) TMI 1174 - HC - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Undervaluation of goods - Imposition of penalty - Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the deposit of a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- by the HUF as also separately by the appellant - Held that - Tribunal was not justified in imposing the condition of pre-deposit of the penalty amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case and when the appellants not being attributed any direct role in relation to the under-valuation of goods, the Tribunal should not have imposed a condition which prejudicially affects the right of the appeal conferred on the appellant by law. For all these reasons, we direct that on a deposit of the sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- by the HUF and which sum shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from today, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in so far as the amount of penalty directed against the appellant. Meaning thereby the appellant would not be required to deposit the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- as directed by the Tribunal, in the event, our order passed today is complied by the HUF. If the order is not complied with, then, the direction issued by the Tribunal shall revive and non-compliance therewith to visit all the consequences in law. In the event, our order is complied, the Tribunal to hear the appeal in accordance with law. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of pre-deposit
- Imposition of penalty on HUF and appellant separately
- Exercise of discretion by the Tribunal
- Whether Tribunal erred in directing deposit by both HUF and appellant
- Whether Tribunal should have considered granting partial relief

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court was against an order of pre-deposit where the Tribunal had directed a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) to deposit a penalty amount along with a separate requirement for the appellant to pay a sum. The appellant argued that both entities should not be penalized, especially when the appellant was not directly responsible for the under-valuation. The revenue supported the Tribunal's decision, stating it was made at the pre-deposit stage and did not raise substantial legal questions. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law, questioning the Tribunal's imposition of the penalty on both the HUF and the appellant separately and whether the Tribunal should have considered granting partial relief based on the strength of the appellant's case.

The High Court, after considering the submissions, found that the Tribunal was not justified in imposing the pre-deposit condition, especially when the appellant had no direct involvement in the under-valuation issue. The Court directed that if the HUF deposited a specified amount within four weeks, there would be a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the penalty directed against the appellant. This meant that the appellant would not have to pay the sum separately as directed by the Tribunal, provided the HUF complied with the Court's order. Failure to comply would result in the Tribunal's original direction being enforced. The Court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the conflicting arguments presented.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's imposition of the penalty on both the HUF and the appellant separately was not justified. The Court's decision aimed to protect the appellant's right to appeal and ensure fairness in the proceedings by waiving the pre-deposit condition for the appellant based on the HUF's compliance with the specified deposit amount within the given timeframe.