M/S New Bharat Adv Tyres vs Commissioner Of Customs-Kandla
- CitationAppeal No. : C/11289,11290/2015
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellate authority has dismissed an appeal for non-compliance with a stay order, and the appellant has already made the mandatory pre-deposit required under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, the pre-deposit already made before the Tribunal is sufficient for the appeal to be heard on merits before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the appellate authority cannot insist on a further pre-deposit as a condition of hearing the appeal on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of OIA-453-454/2013/CUS/COMMR-A-/KDL dtd 1.7.2013 Passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-KANDLA ]
M/s New Bharat Adv Tyres Shri Nasim Khan - Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of CUSTOMS-KANDLA - Respondent (s)
Represented by:
Appellant (s) : Shri P P Jadeja, Consultant Respondent (s) : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 1/9/2015
ORDER No. A/11279-11280 / 2015 dtd 1/9/2015
Per : Mr. P.K.Das;
The applicants filed these applications for Early Hearing of the appeals. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appeals may be decided at this stage.
2. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the records, we find that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed for non-compliance of stay order. The appellant already submitted proof of mandatory pre-deposit as required under Section 129E of the Customs Act 1962 as amended. After considering the submission of both the sides, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order without going into merit. In our considered view, the deposit made by the appellant before the Tribunal is sufficient for hearing of the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on merit without insisting any pre-deposit. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand. The Early Hearing applications are disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami ??
??
??
??
2
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