2014 (9) TMI 838 - HC - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - Preparation of false documents in respect of some exports, i.e. DEPB Script - Held that - Section 129E enables the persons aggrieved by the orders of the lower authority to prefer an appeal to the CESTAT. The further direction to deposit duty and interest demanded or the penalty levied - facially would be applicable to aggrieved assessee, who has suffered adverse orders. It cannot apply to these circumstances where the assessee as in the present case is a respondent. In these circumstances, the direction of the CESTAT to the appellant to deposit 10 lakhs is unwarranted. Accordingly the said order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal could insist on a pre-deposit amount for hearing.

Analysis:
The appellant succeeded in its appeal before the Commissioner of Customs after being issued a Show Cause Notice alleging false document preparation regarding exports, specifically DEPB Script. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) initially remitted the matter for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. Subsequently, the adjudicating authority confirmed the allegations in the Show Cause Notice. The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner of Customs to set aside the adjudicating authority's order. The Revenue, feeling aggrieved, approached the CESTAT, which directed a stay on the appellate authority's order and ordered the appellant to deposit 10 lakhs within four weeks. The appellant argued that directing a successful assessee to make a deposit was beyond the power of granting interim relief. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner's order contained errors and insisted on a minimum deposit for the larger interest of the Revenue.

The High Court analyzed the submissions and referred to Section 129E, which enables aggrieved persons to appeal to the CESTAT. The Court noted that directions to deposit duty, interest, or penalty would typically apply to aggrieved assesses who have suffered adverse orders, not respondents like the appellant in this case. Therefore, the direction of the CESTAT for the appellant to deposit 10 lakhs was deemed unwarranted. The High Court set aside the order and instructed the CESTAT to proceed with the Revenue's appeal on merits without requiring a pre-deposit by the assessee. Consequently, the case CUS.A.A.11/2014 was disposed of, and an order for dasti was issued.