2017 (3) TMI 1400 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Effective date of amendment to Section 129E of CA, 1962 - mandatory pre-deposit - The only argument canvased before us is that the tribunal could not have taken recourse to the second proviso because the order-in-original, from which the appeal arose, is dated 24th June, 2014. That is prior to 6th August, 2014, on which date section 129-E as quoted above, as amended, came into force - Held that - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Ganesh Yadav Versus Union of India And 3 Others 2015 (7) TMI 304 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , where it was held that by virtue of the opening words of Section 35F(1) of the Act as well as by the second proviso to the provision, it is clear that appeals which are filed on and after the enforcement of the amended provision on 6 August 2014 shall be governed by the requirement of pre-deposit as stipulated therein - the tribunal was right in applying the amended provision. There is no legal infirmity or perversity in the order impugned before us - the tribunal was right in applying the amended provision - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging tribunal's order under section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the tribunal for failing to comply with the requirement of depositing a percentage of the duty demanded or penalty imposed under section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found that the appellant did not deposit 7.5% of the penalty amount as required by the section, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without adjudication. The tribunal granted sufficient time for compliance, but the appellant failed to meet the condition by the specified date. The second proviso of section 129-E exempts stay applications and appeals pending before any appellate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, which was not applicable in this case. The appellant argued that the order-in-original was dated before the amendment of section 129-E, but this argument was previously rejected by a Division Bench and other judgments, including the Allahabad High Court ruling in the case of Ganesh Yadav. The High Court upheld the tribunal's decision, stating that the amended provision of section 129-E was correctly applied, and there was no legal flaw in the tribunal's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law.