9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure-P/2), impugned order of Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure-P/3), Impugned Order of Mr. Gauri Shankar Sinha Ld. Additional Commissioner of Customs dated 08.12.2021 (Annexure-P/4), B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the petitioner Application No-50264/2024 as the petitioner had deposited the penalty/pre-deposit fees of Rs.14,25,546.10 vide DD No. 509751 dated 08.02.2024 of Rs. 10,00,113.50 and DD No. 509675 dated 09.02.2024 of Rs.4,25,432.60 which is more than 10% of the penalty amount of Rs. 1,02,50,000/- as per section 129E of the Customs Act and same may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ZU). After the preliminary investigation, a show cause notice dated 19.05.2020 was issued and the said proceedings culminated in the impugned order dated 08.12.2021. 5. The petitioner filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 08.12.2021 before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) [hereafter the CC(A)]. However, the petitioner failed to make a pre-deposit for maintaining the said appeal. Accordingly, the learned CC(A) declined to entertain the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay as well as non-compliance of provisions of mandatory pre-deposit Section 129(E) of the Act. 6. The petitioner assailed the order dated 21.03.2023 before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition being [Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or restoration of his appeal. However, the same was dismissed by an order dated 02.07.2024, which is challenged in the present appeal. 11. It is apparent from the above, the petitioner has exhausted its remedies against it grievance of its appeals not being entertained on the ground of not making the pre-deposit. The petitioner has also agitated his grievance in this regard before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, albeit unsuccessfully. 12. In the given facts, it is apparent that the petitioner is seeking to reagitate the issues before this Court. This is clearly a case of forum shopping and cannot be countenanced. 13. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutional vires of Section 129(E) of the Act. We find no grounds to entertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
