2015 (12) TMI 854 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - forging of documents for the export of Non-Basmati Rice, Basmati Rice and also Murate of Potash (MOP) - Held that - Adjudicating Authority had imposed penalty on all those appellants for the role played by them in respect of forging of documents for the export of Non-Basmati Rice, Basmati Rice and also Murate of Potash (MOP). On evaluating the evidence cursorily, we prima facie view all the four appellants has some role to play in forging the documents. All the legal arguments made by the Ld Counsel can be considered at the time of final disposal of appeal. At this juncture, we hold that none of the appellants made out the case for complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Accordingly, we are of the view that they should be directed to pre-deposit some amounts for hearing and disposing the appeals on merits - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposition for forging documents related to export of Non-Basmati Rice, Basmati Rice, and Murate of Potash.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Hon'ble Member (Judicial), and Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon'ble Member, addressed the issue of penalty imposition on four appellants for their involvement in forging documents for the export of Non-Basmati Rice, Basmati Rice, and Murate of Potash. The Tribunal noted that all appellants had a role in the forgery based on a cursory evaluation of the evidence. While considering legal arguments for the final appeal disposal, the Tribunal held that none of the appellants established a case for a complete waiver of the pre-deposit amounts. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to pre-deposit specific amounts to proceed with the hearing and disposal of the appeals on merits. The pre-deposit amounts were set as follows: Shri Anil Navnai - Rs. 5 lacs, Shri Anil Prajapati - Rs. 4 lacs, Shri Diptesh Patel - Rs. 3 lacs, and Shri Manesh Rajwani - Rs. 5 lacs. The appellants were given 12 weeks to comply with the pre-deposit directive and report the compliance by a specified date. Upon compliance verification, the recovery of the balance amounts involved was stayed until the appeals' final disposal, subject to the reported compliance. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to pre-deposit requirements before proceeding with the appeal hearings. The judgment provided a clear roadmap for the appellants to follow in terms of compliance and subsequent appeal proceedings.