2019 (10) TMI 227 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the requirement of mandatory deposit - section 129 (e) of the Customs Act, 1962 - eligibility benefits u/s 114 (1) and 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The appellant is certainly not an officer and no benefit can be granted based upon the order passed by the Tribunal. As the mandatory requirement of per-deposit as provided u/s 129 (e) has not been fulfilled, the Tribunal iss justified in dismissing the appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal arising from non-compliance of mandatory requirements under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Interpretation of Section 129E regarding pre-deposit in appeals.
3. Comparison of judgments from different High Courts on pre-deposit requirements.
4. Dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions.
5. Judicial stance on fraudulent export practices and undue benefits claims.

Issue 1: Appeal arising from non-compliance of mandatory requirements under Customs Act, 1962
The appeal in question arose from an order passed by the Customs and Service Tax Excise Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appellant's appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements as per Section 129 (e) of the Act. The appellant argued that a similar appeal had been allowed by the Tribunal previously, but the court noted that the previous case involved a departmental officer and did not apply to the appellant.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 129E regarding pre-deposit in appeals
The court extensively discussed Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates a deposit of a certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing an appeal. The court emphasized that the appellant had not made any deposit as required by law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The court rejected the petitioner's plea to waive the pre-deposit based on judgments from other High Courts, stating that the statutory provision did not allow for such waivers.

Issue 3: Comparison of judgments from different High Courts on pre-deposit requirements
The court compared judgments from various High Courts, including Andhra Pradesh, Allahabad, Delhi, and Madras, on the issue of pre-deposit requirements under different statutes. It noted that the judgments cited by the petitioner were not applicable to the present case under the Customs Act, 1962, as the appellate Tribunal did not have the power to waive or reduce the pre-deposit amount.

Issue 4: Dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions
Several cases were cited where appeals were dismissed due to non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory requirements. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal in the present case due to the appellant's failure to make the necessary deposit as mandated by law.

Issue 5: Judicial stance on fraudulent export practices and undue benefits claims
The court referenced a Supreme Court decision regarding fraudulent export practices and over-invoicing for claiming undue benefits, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to legal provisions in such cases. It cited instances where writ petitions related to alleged fraudulent practices were dismissed, underscoring the courts' reluctance to interfere in findings of fact, especially in cases involving fraudulent activities.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision based on the appellant's failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to statutory provisions and emphasized the limitations on the Tribunal's authority to waive or reduce pre-deposit amounts.