9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Impugning order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding waiver of pre-deposit condition. Analysis: The petitioners challenged an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which dismissed their application for complete waiver of the pre-deposit condition but reduced the amount to be deposited. The petitioners argued that since the price of goods was in possession of the authorities, they should not be required to deposit the penalty amount as per Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the court found no legal or factual basis to interfere with the impugned order. Section 129E mandates that pending an appeal, if duty and interest are demanded in relation to goods not under customs control, the appellant must deposit the required amount. In cases where the duty and interest are demanded for goods under customs control, the appellant is not required to make the deposit. Notably, the requirement for deposit applies to penalties without the condition of goods being under customs control. The appellate authority had already reduced the pre-deposit amounts from Rs. 15 lacs and Rs. 5 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 2 lacs, respectively. The court emphasized that the word "penalty" in Section 129E is not restricted by the condition of goods being under customs control. Therefore, regardless of the possession of goods, an appellant challenging a penalty order must comply with the pre-deposit condition. The court found no jurisdictional or legal errors warranting intervention under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the distinction between deposit requirements for duty, interest, and penalties under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment clarified that the possession of goods by customs authorities does not exempt an appellant from making a pre-deposit when challenging a penalty order, as opposed to duty and interest demands.
|
