9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee petitioners have challenged the Orders-in-Original dated 17.12.2015, in and by which, 998 grams of foreign marked gold bars and crude gold bangles were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with relevant rules of the Foreign Trade (Exemption from Application of Rules in Certain Cases) Order, 1993 and seizure of the garments, which were used for concealing the gold bars, were made apart from imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on each of the petitioners. 3. In W.P.Nos.36583, 36585 and 36587 of 2016, the very same petitioners have challenged the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 18.7.2016, which were filed against the Orders-in-Original dated 17.12.2015. Therefore, the writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation dated 19.2.2016, the only option available to the petitioners was to send the appeals in proper format and effect predeposit. However, without doing so, the petitioners presented the appeals in the proper format and filed a petition for dispensing with the mandatory condition of predeposit of 7.5%. 7. It appears that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that during the relevant point of time, the Statute stood amended and the erstwhile procedure of dispensing with the condition of predeposit was done away with and all the appeals were required to be filed with a proof of payment of predeposit of 7.5% of duty/penalty. But, yet the petitioners were harping upon the request for dispensing with the condition of predeposit stating v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presented in the proper format on 17.3.2016, the appeals were time barred. Though the period would have been within the condonable limit, the condonation of delay is not automatic. In terms of the provisions of the Statute, the appellant must show sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals within time and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) should be satisfied that the appellant was prevented by such sufficient cause. Thus, the argument that the presentation of the appeals in the proper format on 17.3.2016 was within the condonable limit is of no avail. 11. Admittedly, the payment of 7.5% of predeposit was effected only on 13.6.2016. As on that date, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to entertain or admit the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
