2017 (2) TMI 1026 - AT - Customs

Power of Tribunal - Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - whether the Tribunal has power to reduce or enhance the amount, as a condition to hear the appeals? - Held that - On a plain reading of the provision of Section 129E, it is crystal clear that the Tribunal has no discretion to vary the amount of pre-deposit prescribed under the said provision in any manner - the applicants directed to deposit 71/2 % of duty confirmed in each of the Appeals - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Stay applications filed along with appeals - Interpretation of High Court's directive - Authority to waive pre-deposit of duty - Tribunal's power to reduce or enhance pre-deposit amount.

Analysis:
The case involved two stay applications filed with appeals, where the appellant challenged an order-in-original before the High Court, which remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for appellate remedy. The High Court directed the appellant to file appeals before the Tribunal by a specified date. The appellant argued that despite the amendment to Section 129E of the Customs Act, allowing the Tribunal to waive pre-deposit of duty, the Tribunal should consider the High Court's order. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the Tribunal must follow the law as it existed at the time of the High Court's order, which did not allow for discretion in pre-deposit amounts.

The High Court's directive emphasized deciding the applications for stay "in accordance with law." The Tribunal was directed to follow this directive. The amended Section 129E of the Customs Act mandated specific pre-deposit percentages, leaving no room for discretion. The Tribunal was bound by the law to require the appellant to deposit 71/2 % of the duty confirmed in each appeal within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of the respective appeal without further notice. The Tribunal clarified that it had no authority to vary the pre-deposit amount prescribed under the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the requirement for the appellant to make the specified pre-deposit within the given timeframe, as mandated by the amended Section 129E of the Customs Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the clear directive from the High Court to act "in accordance with law," which did not allow for discretion in pre-deposit amounts. Compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was crucial to avoid dismissal of the appeals.