2006 (8) TMI 203 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding duty and penalty payment.
2. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
3. Modification of Tribunal's order by High Court.
4. Review petition based on decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal.
5. Consideration of facts by Tribunal and decision on bank guarantee requirement.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal directing duty payment due to the use of forged or bogus licenses for importing goods. The Tribunal required the petitioner to pay duty and penalty, leading to an appeal by the petitioner.
2. Seeking waiver of pre-deposit, the petitioner contended that the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal, however, mandated the deposit of the entire duty amount within six months, with the penalty being waived upon compliance.
3. The High Court modified the Tribunal's order, directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the duty amount and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining 50%, emphasizing the mixed question of law and fact regarding the time-barred demand.
4. A review petition was filed citing a favorable decision by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, arguing for a modification of the bank guarantee requirement. The High Court granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reconsideration based on the Mumbai Bench's decision.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the Mumbai Bench's decision, distinguished the cases due to differing facts. It noted the admission of using forged licenses and making payments to a fictitious firm in the present case, leading to the refusal to waive the bank guarantee requirement for 50% of the duty amount.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to furnish a bank guarantee within six weeks. The Court emphasized that observations made were for interim purposes, and the petitioner must comply to avoid dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, highlighting the need for a final determination based on factual distinctions, rather than preemptive interference.