9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1084 - HC - CustomsReview order - error apparent on the face of record or not - scope of review - Maintainability of petition - pre deposits for filing the appeal as provided in Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - On due consideration and submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record as also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, in the case of Chandra Shekhar Jha 2022 (3) TMI 606 - SUPREME COURT also the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of the aforesaid Section are not discretionary and the appellant is bound by the aforesaid provision. Taking note of the fact that in the order under review this Court has already referred to Section 129E of the Customs Act, there is no error apparent on the face of the order, which may call for the review of the same - Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
Review of order dismissing petitioner's petition due to non-compliance with Section 129-E of Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition seeking a review of the order dated 07.09.2020, which dismissed the petitioner's petition based on the provisions of Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that the Court did not consider a previous Supreme Court decision in a similar case, making it impossible for the petitioner to deposit the required amount for filing an appeal. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel opposed the review, stating that the scope of review is limited and cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in Chandra Shekhar Jha V/s. Union of India, emphasizing that the provisions of Section 129-E are mandatory. The Supreme Court, in the mentioned case, held that the discretion to scale down the pre-deposit has been removed under the new regime, reducing the deposit amount to 7.5% but capping it at Rs. 10 Crores. The Court rejected the appellant's argument for the benefit of the proviso under the substituted provision, as it would create a legal inconsistency. Despite extending the compliance period by two months in the interest of justice, the appeal was ultimately dismissed. The Court, after considering the submissions and the Supreme Court's decision in Chandra Shekhar Jha case, found no error in the previous order referring to Section 129-E of the Customs Act. The Court concluded that there was no apparent mistake in the order warranting a review, as the petitioner's case lacked merit. Therefore, the petition for review was dismissed.
|
