2013 (6) TMI 434 - HC - Customs

Stay - requirement of pre deposit - it was found that the goods exported by the petitioner were not composed of 100% acrylic and so it was liable to pay duty on goods imported without payment of duty. - Held that - he goods which were for export were provisionally released on the request of the petitioner subject to test report of CRCL, New Delhi. The Tribunal noticed that the CRCL report was against the petitioner and it remained unimpeached from the adjudicating process. It was in such circumstances that the petitioner was required to deposit amount of Rs. 8,08,572/- as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal. - No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning an order requiring deposit of duty for hearing an appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal that mandated the deposit of the entire duty amount of Rs. 8,08,572 as a prerequisite for hearing the appeal. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and exporting blankets and shawls, imported acrylic fiber under an Advance license with a condition to export the resultant products. However, upon examination, it was found that the exported goods did not meet the required composition, leading to a demand for duty payment. The petitioner appealed the decision, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand. Subsequently, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit the full duty amount for the appeal to be heard.

The petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in not waiving the duty considering their financial constraints. However, the High Court, after reviewing the case, found no merit in the petitioner's argument. The provisional release of goods for export was subject to a test report, which ultimately went against the petitioner. The Court noted that the CRCL report remained unchallenged during the adjudication process, leading to the requirement of depositing the duty amount as a condition for appeal hearing.

The High Court concluded that no illegality or perversity was evident in the Tribunal's order, warranting interference. As a result, the petition was dismissed, with an extension of four weeks granted for the petitioner to deposit the required amount. The Court clarified that if the petitioner complies with the deposit directive within the specified time frame, the appeal would proceed for a merit-based hearing following the law.

In summary, the judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision to demand the full duty amount as a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, considering the unchallenged adverse test report results. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the deposit directive within the extended timeline to enable a substantive hearing on the appeal's merits.