2021 (3) TMI 101 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount - Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - On a plain reading of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, it is clear that an appeal cannot be entertained unless the provisions of Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 has been complied with. The appeal being not maintainable, accordingly, not entertained.

Summary

Issues:
Non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals filed without complying with the pre-deposit requirements under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Registry pointed out the absence of self-attested pre-deposit challans in the appeals, leading to a defect memo. Despite this, the appellants did not pay the requisite amount or provide copies of challans, resulting in the defect not being rectified. The matter was brought before the Bench for direction, and the appellants sought an adjournment to seek instructions and file vakalatnama. The appellants argued that certain amounts had been appropriated in the adjudication order, but additional payments were needed to comply with Section 129E. Reference was made to a judgment of the Bombay High Court, emphasizing that non-compliance should not lead to dismissal.

The Authorized Representative for Revenue highlighted that the appellants, during provisional assessment, were required to execute a bond supported by a bank guarantee. While the necessary bond was executed, no bank guarantee was submitted. It was contended that the order should have enforced the bond instead of appropriating it. The Representative argued that compliance with Section 129E was mandatory before entertaining the appeals. The appellants were required to deposit a certain percentage of the duty demanded or penalty imposed as per the Customs Act, 1962, failing which the appeals could not be entertained. The Representative stressed that the judgment cited by the appellants was based on old, unamended provisions and was not applicable to the current case.

The Tribunal concurred with the Authorized Representative's argument, emphasizing that an appeal could not be entertained unless the provisions of Section 129E were adhered to. The judgment cited by the appellants, based on outdated provisions, could not be applied to the present circumstances. Consequently, due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirements, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and was not entertained.