2021 (4) TMI 97 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of pre-deposit - Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - During the course of investigation, the appellant has already deposited ₹ 3,65,641/- against the total demand of ₹ 13,63,402/-, which in our view is sufficient to hear the appeal. Since the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not heard the matter on merit, we remand the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merit without insisting any further pre-deposit in the matter. All issues are kept open. A reasonable opportunity of hearing be extended to the appellant before deciding the appeal on merit. Appeals are allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 48/MCH/ADC/III/BN/2013 dated 18.01.2013.
2. Allegation of mis-declaration of value in Bills of Entry for import of Opal Glassware and Plain Glassware.
3. Enhancement of value by the adjudicating authority.
4. Confirmation of differential duty and penalty.
5. Direction for pre-deposit by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
6. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
7. Request for remand to decide the issue on merit.
8. Consideration of deposit made during investigation.
9. Decision to remand the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
10. Time-bound completion of de novo proceeding due to the age of the appellant's proprietor.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 48/MCH/ADC/III/BN/2013 dated 18.01.2013, concerning the mis-declaration of value in Bills of Entry for the import of Opal Glassware and Plain Glassware. The adjudicating authority enhanced the value of the goods, leading to the confirmation of a differential duty and penalty. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed a pre-deposit of 50% of the duty confirmed under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, which was not complied with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The appellant had deposited a certain amount during the investigation, but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider this deposit while dismissing the appeal. The appellant requested a remand to decide the case on its merits, highlighting that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not delve into the details of the case. The Revenue accepted that the issue was not decided on merit and had no objection to the remand.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, acknowledged the deposit made by the appellant during the investigation. Finding the deposit sufficient to hear the appeal, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merit without requiring any further pre-deposit. The Tribunal emphasized that all issues were to be kept open, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the appellant.

4. Additionally, due to the advanced age of the appellant's proprietor, a request was made for a time-bound completion of the de novo proceeding. Both parties agreed to this request, and the Tribunal directed that the appeal should ideally be decided within six months from the date of communication of the order. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, providing a pathway for a thorough reconsideration of the case on its merits.