9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground of non compliance with an order imposing a pre-deposit condition. 2. Heard Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the limited nature of the dispute raised in the appeal, we directed Mr.V. Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel to take notice for the second respondent. 3. The appellant imported a Nissan GTR car, under a bill of entry dated 3.11.2008. It was allegedly imported for personal use. After declaring that it was a brand new car, duty was paid claiming benefit under S.No.344(2) of Notification No.21/2002 dated 1.3.2002. 4. After the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence gathered information that the car was undervalued at the time of import, the appellant was issued with a show cause notice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 114A, I do not impose any penalty of Shri Ranjit Sundaramurthy under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962. viii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on Shri Alberto Bestonso under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. ix) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on Shri Ranjit Sundaramurthy under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962." 5. The appellant filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Customs. The Appellate Authority passed an order on 15.1.2014, modifying the order of the Original Authority. The operative portion of the order of the Appellate Authority reads as follows : "In view of the above discussions and facts and legal position stated there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 4.2.2015 directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within four weeks. After the expiry of the period of four weeks, the Tribunal passed an order dated 15.4.2015, dismissing the appeal on the ground that the condition was not complied with. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us. 8. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that since the vehicle was not in his custody and was already seized from the custody of a third party, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 129E and that the question of making a deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs did not arise, when the quantum of penalty itself was stipulated only as Rs. 5 lakhs. In any case, the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs is secured on account of a bank guarantee already furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
