9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jection of appeal on that ground. The law on the subject is not res integra. If the statute gives a right to appeal upon certain conditions, it is upon fulfillment of those conditions that the right becomes vested and exercisable to the appellant. The proviso to Section 129E of the Act gives a discretion to the Tribunal in cases of undue hardships to dispense the obligation to deposit the duty/interest or penalty. Admittedly, in this case the application for waiver of pre-deposit was dismissed by the learned Tribunal and the writ petitions challenging the orders passed by learned CESTAT have already been dismissed by the High Court. Admittedly, appellants did not make compliance of pre-deposit order even thereafter and therefore learned Tribunal was constrained to dismiss the appeals. Thus, the question of law is answered holding that there is no error in the orders passed by learned CESTAT, thereby, dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the deposit order dated 17.06.2009, as per the provisions of Section 129 read with proviso of Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeals are therefore dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . d) Why transaction made in the account no. 4419 of M/s G S account no. 4303 of M/s A'S Raj and account no. 4334 of M/s Shrey Overseas should not be confiscated in terms of section 121 of Customs Act, 1962. e) Why penalty should not be imposed on these under section 114 of the Custom Act, 1962. f) Why goods exported by them and mis-declared in terms of description value should not be confiscated in absentia for violations discussed here in above under the provisions of section 113 (d), (h), (i ii) and (k) of the Customs Act 1962. 3. SCNs were adjudicated vide Order-in-Original (OIO) No. JJ/ACE/21/2008 dated 30.09.2008 holding as under:- (a) The Drawback amounting to Rs. 67,56,033/- in the matter of M/s. G S International (As detailed in Annexure-1) and Drawback amounting to Rs. 1,00,05,250/- in the matter of M/s. A's Raj International (as detailed in Annexure JI) are inadmissible to them. The same shall be recovered from them along with interest@ 18% per annum under section 75 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 16 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules 1995. (b) The amount of Rs. 2,249/- on account number 017627 of M/s. G S International, Rs. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iver of pre-deposit under Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962 and stay of operation of the impugned order dated 30.09.2008 before the CESTAT. The CESTAT vide order dated 17.06.2009, dismissed the stay applications, directing the appellant M/s. G.S. International to deposit Rs. 67,56,033/- and appellant M/s. A s Raj International to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,05,250/- within a period of four week from the date of the order. 5. Questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, appellants filed WP (C) No. 10507/2009 and 10509/2009 before the High Court. However, petitions were dismissed by the High Court vide common order dated 29.07.2009. 6. CESTAT vide Final Order No. C/356-357/2009 dated 10.08.2009, recorded the non-compliance of its order No. C-131- 132/09-CUS dated 17.06.2009 and dismissed the appeals. 7. Challenging the CESTAT Final Order No. C/356-357/2009 dated 10.08.2009 , appellants/exporters have filed the present appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. Both the appeals were admitted and by the order dated 24.05.2020, following question of law was formulated. a. Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing. 11. It is pertinent to note that Section 129E of the Act as it stood prior to its Amendment by Finance Act (No. 2) of 2014, conferred a discretion on the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as CESTAT to dispense with the deposit liable to be made for the purposes of an assessee pursuing an appeal where it was found that the deposit of duty, interest or penalty levied would cause hardship. 12. No doubt, Section 129E does not expressly provides for the rejection of appeal for non-compliance with the requirements regarding the deposit of penalty or duty but the provision makes it obligatory on the appellants to deposit the duty or penalty pending the appeal and if a party does not comply either with the main Section or with any order that may be passed under the proviso, the Appellate Authority is fully competent to reject the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E. Unless Section 129E is complied with, the Appellate Authority cannot proceed to hear the appeal on merits. Therefore, the logical consequence of failure to comply with Section 129E, is the rejection o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
