2018 (3) TMI 439 - HC - Customs

Pre-deposit - the only ground which was canvassed was that the Bank did not advance loan to the Appellant - Held that - we find no error in the approach of the Appellate Tribunal when in the first impugned order dated 16th October 2014, it was held that the Appellant neither pleaded the financial hardship nor placed any material in support of such a plea - there was absolutely no merit in the Applications for modification which have been decided against the Appellant by the two other impugned orders. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to duty demand confirmation, predeposit order, modification application dismissal, financial hardship plea, statutory amendment applicability, substantial question of law.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed challenging the duty demand confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, which was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal directing a predeposit of a specified amount within a given time frame. The Appellant failed to comply with the predeposit order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal.

2. The Appellant made multiple applications for modification of the predeposit order, which were dismissed by the Tribunal. The Appellant argued financial hardship, citing a statutory amendment requiring a deposit of 7.5%. The Appellant also referenced a High Court decision granting a stay on a related amendment to the Customs Act.

3. The Court noted that the Appellant did not adequately plead financial hardship or provide evidence to support the claim during the initial hearing. The Tribunal found no merit in the modification applications as the financial constraints were not raised effectively during the proceedings.

4. The Court reviewed the impugned orders and determined that the Appellant failed to present a strong case for financial hardship during the appeal process. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the predeposit order was deemed appropriate, considering the lack of substantial evidence supporting the Appellant's claims.

5. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision, as the Appellant failed to demonstrate a valid reason for non-compliance with the predeposit order. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with no costs imposed on either party.