Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 1156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... NERAL) [2014 (4) TMI 909 - DELHI HIGH COURT] importing the same machine had challenged the order of the Tribunal requiring the distributor to make pre-deposit of 50% of the total demand which order was modified by the High Court on 16.04.2014 by requiring the distributor to make deposit of 20% of the amount of duty as a pre-condition for filing the appeal. In view of the aforesaid order of the Delhi High Court passed in connection with an identical machine imported by a distributor, it is considered appropriate to dispose of the modification applications that were filed by the appellant and Jagjeet Singh with a direction that if the appellant makes a deposit of 20% of the total duty amount confirmed and Jagjeet Singh makes a deposit of 20% .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and they were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order dated 31.12.2014. 4. The appellant was appointed as a super distributor by M/s. Panasonic Asia Pacific Limited. The appellant imported facsimile machines of Panasonic Brand into India for onward sale to regional distributors. The appellant classified the said machines under Customs Tariff Item [CTI] 8443 32 60, while the department believed that the machines deserved classification under CTI 8443 39 70. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 19.12.2011 was issued to the appellant as also to Jagjeet Singh, who is the Director of the appellant. The Additional Commissioner, by order dated 24.09.2013, confir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing was fixed for 26.7.2014 and 8.9.2014. Sh Rajat Doshi, advocate, on behalf of the appellants appeared on 8.9.2014 but failed to produce the receipts of the pre-deposit made as required under Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962. 5) Discussion and findings:- I have carefully gone through the contents of appeal and the interim Order-in-Appeal dated 17.06.2014 passed by my predecessor. Keeping in view the provisions of the said Section 129E of the Act ibid, both the Appellants were directed to pre-deposit the Govt. dues on or before 28th July 2014 and produce the relevant copies of Challan substantiating the said payment to this office. However, after giving sufficient time to both the appellants, they did not submit any documentary e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the matter of a similar distributor. 10. Shri Nagendra Yadav, learned authorized representative appearing for the department has, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that even if the modification applications were pending and no order had been passed, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have made the pre-deposit within the time granted by the order dated 17.06.2014. 11. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered. 12. It is not in dispute that the appellant and Jagjeet Singh had filed applications for modifying the order dated 17.06.2024 that required the appellant and Jagjeet Singh to make the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as? CESTAT?) requiring pre-deposit of 50% duty is justified in the circumstances of the case. xxx xxx xxx 3. This Court has considered the submissions. It is evident from the materials on record that there appears to be a conflict within the department itself as to the proper classification of goods i.e. whether they are to be cleared under tariff heading 8443 32 70 or 8443 32 60. This coupled with the fact that one Member of the CESTAT was of the opinion that the extended period of limitation was not properly invoked, is in the opinion of this Court sufficient for the Tribunal to have made an order granting substantial relief. Having regard to these facts this Court is of the opinion that the i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates