Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 134 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - rejection on the ground of non-payment of predeposit amount - HELD THAT - It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had shifted his office and was not aware of the order having been passed by the first appellate authority and it was only when the impugned recovery notice was received by it through the customs broker that it came to be aware of the order passed in appeal. Thereafter, an appeal has been filed before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 06.01.2020 along with application for condonation of delay of 1930 days. The application for condonation is yet to be decided. In the meantime, as far as protection from recovery is concerned, as against a demand of ₹ 15 lakhs (approx), a sum or ₹ 4 lakhs (approx) has been remitted by the petitioner, that is in excess of the 7.5% of pre-deposit required to be made before the CESTAT - Petition disposed off.
Issues: Challenge to recovery notice; Non-payment of predeposit amount; Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Protection from recovery; Deposit amount for lifting attachment.
The judgment delivered by the High Court pertained to a challenge against a recovery notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had been rejected earlier due to non-payment of the predeposit amount, a decision that had become final. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the appellate authority's order due to relocating the office and only became aware of it upon receiving the recovery notice through a customs broker. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) along with a request for condonation of a 1930-day delay, which was pending consideration. Regarding protection from recovery, the petitioner had already remitted around ?4 lakhs, exceeding the 7.5% pre-deposit requirement for CESTAT. The court directed the petitioner to deposit an additional ?5 lakhs within four weeks to lift the attachment on bank accounts, with this payment subject to the outcome of the pending appeal before CESTAT. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without imposing any costs.
|