1990 (8) TMI 151 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of rejecting appeal under Section 129 of the Customs Act.
2. Disposal of application for dispensing with penalty deposit without personal hearing.
3. Granting reasonable time for penalty deposit and appeal restoration.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the rejection of an appeal by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under Section 129 of the Customs Act. The case involved the interception of a launch carrying foreign goods, leading to the seizure of goods and the vessel on suspicion of smuggling. The Collector of Central Excise, Pune, subsequently issued an order confiscating the goods and imposing a personal penalty on the petitioner under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

2. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, appealed to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, seeking dispensation from depositing the penalty amount. The Board rejected the application for dispensing with the deposit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with Section 129. The petitioner contended that the application was disposed of without a personal hearing, but the court found no fault in the Board's decision, considering the petitioner's financial status and assets.

3. The court, however, granted the petitioner a four-week period to deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 10,000 with the Collector of Central Excise, Pune. Upon such deposit, the appeal would be restored and heard by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). Failure to make the deposit within the stipulated time would confirm the Central Board of Excise and Customs' previous order, with the petitioner bearing the respondents' costs.

This judgment highlights the procedural aspects of appeals under the Customs Act, emphasizing compliance with deposit requirements and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to rectify the non-compliance within a specified timeframe.