2017 (9) TMI 951 - HC - Customs

Pre-deposit - Penalty u/s 112(b) - Held that - in view of amended provisions of Section 129A of the Customs Act, the requirement of pre-deposit at the rate of 7.5% of the amount demanded could not be dispensed with - the appellant shall deposit pre-deposit amount in terms of order dated 23rd February, 2015 within a period of 10 weeks from today - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-deposit of pre-determined amount; Failure to comply with pre-deposit requirements leading to dismissal of appeal; Request for extension to deposit the requisite amount and prosecute the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a case where the appellant challenged a penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Commissioner of Customs. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal initially required a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty amount under Section 129A of the Customs Act. The appellant failed to comply with this pre-deposit requirement, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal on May 6, 2015, for not depositing the requisite amount within the stipulated time frame.

The appellant, through their counsel, later expressed willingness to deposit the pre-determined amount within 10 weeks from a specified date. Accepting this undertaking, the High Court granted the appellant another opportunity to prosecute the appeal against the penalty order dated June 18, 2014. The court set aside the previous dismissal order of May 6, 2015, contingent upon the appellant depositing the required amount within the extended timeframe.

In the event of the appellant failing to meet the deposit deadline, the previous dismissal order would remain in effect. However, if the deposit is made within the specified period, the time granted for the appeal proceedings by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal would automatically extend until the deposit date. The court clarified that all arguments on the merits of the case are preserved for future consideration, keeping the contentions open for further review.

Conclusively, the High Court partly allowed the appeal based on the terms outlined in the judgment, providing a detailed framework for the appellant to comply with the pre-deposit requirements and proceed with the appeal process while ensuring the preservation of all substantive contentions for future legal examination.