M/S Apis India Limited vs Cc (Appeals), Icd, Tughlakabad
- CitationCustoms Appeal No. 142 of 2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellate authority has, in terms of the statutory pre-deposit requirement, directed the appellant to deposit a sum as a condition for hearing the appeal, and the appellant fails to comply, the appellate authority is entitled to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance without examining the merits of the underlying demand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Customs Appeal No. 142 of 2010
(Arising out of order in appeal No. CC (A) Cus. ICD/01/2010 dated 04.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Custom House, New Delhi)
M/s APIS India Limited Appellant
Vs.
CC (Appeals), ICD, Tughlakabad Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate for the appellant
Sh. M. R. Sharma, DR for the Respondent
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 51624 / 2015
Per: Justice G. Raghuram:
The appellant is the assessee, aggrieved by the order-in-appeal dated 04.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi whereby its appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit ordered by that Authority on 09.11.2009 as a condition for hearing the appeal.
2. The appellant herein imported raw honey without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 32/97-Cus dated 01.04.1997. The Notification enjoins a condition, that for availment of benefits therein the goods should have been supplied free of cost by the foreign supplier. Admittedly, the appellant received the goods on payment of commercial consideration remitted to the foreign supplier, in foreign exchange.
3. In the circumstances, a show cause notice was issued and after due process the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (BOND), ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi by the order dated 25.06.2009 confirmed Customs Duty demand for Rs.1,14,66,076/- alongwith interest, for violation of the condition of Notification No. 32/97-Cus; directed appropriation of Rs.5 lakhs deposited on 20.05.2009 as partial payment of the duty liability assessed alongwith interest.
3. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal. The application for waiver of pre-deposit was scheduled for hearing on three dates whereat there was no appearance. Therefore, an interim order dated 09.11.2009 was passed directing pre-deposit of Rs. 1 crore within thirty days. Eventually, the appeal was heard and by the order impugned, the learned appellate Commissioner dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the interim pre-deposit order, dated on 09.11.2009.
4. In the circumstances, we are not required to go into the substantive merits of the impugned lower appellate order and into the question whether the confirmed demand of duty was valid in the circumstances. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) impugned herein, dismissing the appeal for failure of pre-deposit ordered, in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 is impeccable and warrants no appellate interference. Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R. K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
Pant
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free