2015 (2) TMI 77 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential duty - Clearance of imported coal - Supreme Court vide interlocutory order directed the appellants to furnish security by way of fixed deposit receipt in the name of Commissioner of Customs for an amount of ₹ 3,03,45,130/- & ₹ 9,10,423/- and thereafter provisional assessment was resorted to and coal was allowed to be cleared - Proceedings initiated have culminated in confirmation of differential duty demand of ₹ 6,35,22,913/- with interest and penalty equal to the same amount. Further, goods have been confiscated and redemption fine has been imposed after confiscation - Held that - When the matter was called, nobody is present on behalf of the appellant and instead, a letter has been received from the learned counsel stating that an appeal has been filed against the 2014 (8) TMI 246 - CESTAT BANGALORE with respect to a similar and identical issue and the SLP is listed for hearing on 13-10-2014. Since the outcome would have an impact on the appeal, the learned counsel has requested that matter may be kept pending. This is a valid ground for keeping the appeal pending, because appeal has been filed on 11-8-2014 and on 6-8-2014, the Finance Bill, 2014 became an Act and consequently, the procedure of granting waiver of pre-deposit and granting stay is no longer required to be followed. The appellant is required to deposit an amount of 7.5% (in this case the order was passed by the Commissioner and this is the first appeal) of the duty. In this case, appellants have not deposited the amount and the fixed deposit receipt in the name of Commissioner of Customs cannot be considered as a pre-deposit in terms of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. - appellant should be given time to make good the omission so that appeal can be heard in due course. Accordingly appellants are directed to deposit 7.5% of the duty demanded within eight weeks and report compliance on 29-12-2014. If no compliance is reported on that date, appeal shall be rejected without any further extension of time for making the payment - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Import and clearance of coal leading to differential duty demand, interest, penalty, confiscation, and redemption fine.
3. Appeal filed against Final Order with request to keep the matter pending.
4. Validity of keeping the appeal pending due to new provisions post-Finance Bill, 2014.
5. Maintainability of the appeal and directive to deposit 7.5% of the duty demanded.

Analysis:
1. The appellants sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons such as an employee's medical treatment and delayed awareness of the order-in-original. The Tribunal, being satisfied with the reasons provided, condoned the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal.

2. The appellants had imported coal declared as steam coal, leading to a detention memo based on a DRI alert. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the appellants to furnish security via fixed deposit receipts, followed by provisional assessment, confirmation of a differential duty demand, interest, penalty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of a redemption fine.

3. During the proceedings, the appellant was absent, and a letter from the counsel indicated an appeal filed against a similar issue. The counsel requested to keep the matter pending due to a related SLP listed for hearing. However, the Tribunal found this request invalid, as new provisions post-Finance Bill, 2014 eliminated the need for waiver of pre-deposit and stay procedures.

4. Considering the failure to deposit the required amount and the fixed deposit receipt not meeting pre-deposit criteria, the Tribunal deemed the appeal not maintainable. The appellants were directed to deposit 7.5% of the duty demanded within eight weeks, with a compliance report due by a specified date, failing which the appeal would be rejected without further extension.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of delay condonation, import-related duty demands, validity of keeping the appeal pending, and the directive on maintaining the appeal's viability through required deposits within a stipulated timeline.