9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 423 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed solely for the reason that the statutory requirement of making the pre-deposit, as contemplated under section 129(E) of the Customs Act, 1962, was not complied with - HELD THAT - There is no consideration of the statement made by the Appellant in the memo of appeal nor any opportunity was granted to the Appellant to make the predeposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have passed an appropriate order regarding the pre-deposit and if the Commissioner (Appeals) was not satisfied, an order should have been passed and if the Commissioner (Appeal) was not satisfied, time should have also been given to the Appellant to make the pre-deposit. The order dated May 29 May, 2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, deserves to be set aside and is set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall examine the issue relating to pre-deposit afresh and pass an appropriate order. If the Commissioner (Appeals) is not satisfied with the submissions of the Appellant regarding pre-deposit, some reasonable time should be granted to the Appellant to make the pre-deposit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Quashing of order for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The appeal sought the quashing of an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 129(E) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of non-compliance with the statutory requirement of making the pre-deposit. The Appellant argued that they had deposited the entire duty amount and a portion of the penalty, as stated in the appeal filed under section 128 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider this fact and dismissed the appeal without granting an opportunity to the Appellant to explain or make the deposit. The Authorized Representative of the Department supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating no error in the order. The Tribunal considered the submissions and examined the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held the appeal as non-maintainable due to the Appellant's failure to deposit the mandatory pre-deposit under section 129E(i) of the Customs Act. Despite the Appellant's statements in the appeal memo regarding the deposited duty and penalty amounts, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider them or grant an opportunity for pre-deposit. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have issued an appropriate order regarding pre-deposit and allowed time for the Appellant to comply if unsatisfied. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and directed a fresh examination of the pre-deposit issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to pass an appropriate order after reevaluation. If pre-deposit was not made or deemed insufficient, the Appellant should be given a reasonable time to comply. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision in this appeal should not be influenced by observations made in connected appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of a fair consideration of pre-deposit requirements and granting the Appellant an opportunity to comply before dismissing an appeal solely on those grounds.
|
