2020 (3) TMI 924 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit - Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merit but dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Before this Tribunal, the appellant has deposited the directed amount vide order of this Tribunal dated 08.04.2014. Since the issue has not been considered on merit by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merit. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Failure of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against Orders-in-Appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for this reason. The appellant, represented by Shri Anil Mishra, argued that the appeal was dismissed without considering the merit of the case. The appellant was directed to deposit a specific amount within a set timeframe, which they failed to do, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal later directed the appellant to deposit a higher amount, which they complied with. Citing relevant judgments, the appellant requested a remand to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merit of the case.

2. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) solely due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit directive, without considering the merits of the case. Following the precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits. It was emphasized that all issues were to be reconsidered, and the appellant was to be granted a fair hearing before a new decision was reached. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring that the appellant's case would be reviewed on its merits.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of non-compliance with pre-deposit directives and the need for a decision on the merits of the case, as addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.