9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rement of the prior deposit of the penalty imposed because under the provisions of these enactments deposit of the penalty imposed by the Original Authority is a condition for the entertainment of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner in support of his prayer for dispensation of the pre-deposit stated that he was a man without any means and therefore was not in a position to deposit such a huge amount of Rs. 75,000/- under one enactment and Rs. 50,000/- under other enactment. This was rejected by the Tribunal by observing that the petitioner has not established that he was not possessed of any property. The Tribunal also observed that the petitioner was not a mere carrier and gold of very substantial value of Rs. 3,00,000/- w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner respondents 1 and 3 would not have hesitated to proceed to recover the penalties in the absence of any inerim order. 5. The validity of Section 129E of the Customs Act came in before the Supreme Court in Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs (A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2010). The Supreme Court pointed out that the right of appeal given to a party is conditioned upon his fulfilling the requirement of the deposit and such a condition cannot be held to be invalid. However, Supreme Court pointed out that the rejection of the application for dispensation of the pre-deposit will have to be judicially considered by the Tribunal by applying the relevant factors and if the rejection is based on such relevant factors, only then the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant case wherein the respondents 1 and 3 have shown that what kind of property the petitioner is possessed of. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not exercised its jurisdiction judicially since it has ignored one of the relevant factors; it is also based on a mis-direction regarding the sufficient means being possessed by the petitioner. Normally I would have asked the Tribunal to re-consider because this is a discretionary order to be made under Section 129E of the Customs Act and Section 82A of the Gold Control Act. Already the matter is pending for nearly 4 years, instead of directing the Tribunal to consider the question of pre-deposit once again. I think the judicial time can be better utilized by consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
