9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has preferred an appeal u/s 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 08-03-2019 on account of non-compliance of the mandatory required as contained u/s129 (e) of the Customs Act, 1962. 03. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon an order dated 12-11-2018 passed in Appeal No. C/52173-52177 and other connected matters and his contention is that the similar appeal has been allowed in the matter by the Tribunal and therefore the question of pre-deposit in the present case does not arise. 04. This court has carefully gone through the aforesaid order dated 12-11-2018 brought on record and the same reveals that it was an appeal filed by the departmental officer holding the post of Commissioner of Customs. This issue involved in the aforesaid appeal was whether the benefits u/s 114 (1) and 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is imposeable upon the Departmental officer or not. The appellant is certainly not an officer and no benefit can be granted based upon the order passed by the Tribunal. On the contrary in a case arising out of the same issue which is involved in the present case, this court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal,- (i) under sub-section (1) of section 128, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent of the duty demanded or penalty imposed or both, in pursuance of a decision or an order passed by an officer of customs lower in rank than the Commissioner of Customs; (ii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 129A, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent of the duty demanded or penalty imposed or both, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against; (iii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 129A, unless the appellant has deposited ten per cent of the duty demanded or penalty imposed or both, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against: Provided that the amount required to be deposited under this section shall not exceed rupees ten crores: Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the stay applications and appeals pending before any appellate author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not permit for waiver of predeposit. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shukla Brothers Vs. Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal reported in 2015 (1) ADJ 48 = MANU/UP/2822/2014. Again it was a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore, distinguishable on facts. Lastly reliance has also been placed upon the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Narendra Yadav Vs. Joint Commissioner of Customs (Exports) (W.P. (c) No. 195/2019, decided on 11/1/2019) and again the condition of pre-deposit has been waived. This Court after careful consideration of the aforesaid judgments is of the opinion that Section 129E does not empower the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) to waive the pre-deposit or to reduce the pre-deposit, this Court is also not inclined, keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision of law to waive or reduce the pre-deposit and, therefore, no case for interference is made out in the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 05. In another case arising out of the same incident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 24164/2018 (Kirit Shrimankar Vs. The Commissioner of CGST Central Excise), which has also been dismissed by this court by order dated 27-03-2019. Thus, in short large number of writ petitions have been filed in respect of alleged fraudulent export/over invoicing for claiming undue benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Tex-age and others reported in 2017(11) SCC 380 has declined to interfere in the matter in respect of finding of fact specially when there was a fraudulent export/over invoicing for claiming undue benefits. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal reads as under :- This appeal has been filed before the Tribunal under section 129 A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act on 27 August, 2018 without ensuring compliance of the provisions of Section 129-E of the Act. 2. A communication dated 12 September, 2018 was, accordingly, sent to the appellant by Speed Post requiring the appellant to submit proof of mandatory deposit before the Registrar on 4 October, 2018. The records indicate that on 4 October, 2018 the appellant submitted a letter fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
