M/S Sach Investments vs Commissioner Of Customs (Imports), ...
- CitationAppeal No. C/88496/14
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Commissioner (Appeals) requires a pre-deposit as a condition of hearing an appeal, the amount demanded must be measured against the statutory minimum under amended Section 129A, which requires deposit of 7.5% of the duty or penalty in dispute. An interim order requiring a higher pre-deposit, where the appellant has already deposited about 20% of the duty, cannot stand, and the stay order is set aside with a direction that the appeal be heard on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 66 & 67(Gr.IIG)/2014(JNCH)/IMP-33 & 34 dated 16.7.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
======================================================
M/s Sach Investments Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Nhava Sheva Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Sikha Sapru, Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Singh & Piyush Kumar, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S.J. Shahu, Advocate for Respondent
CORAM:
SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 23.02.2015
Date of Decision: 23.02.2015
ORDER NO.
Per: Anil Choudhary
The appellant is in appeal against an interim order of pre-deposit passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16.7.2014. The appellant, vide the Order-in-Original dated 04.03.2014, was demanded with customs duty of Rs.32,42,454/- along with interest and penalty of equal amount under Section 112(a) read with Section 114(A) of the Customs Act. An amount of pre-deposit was made by the appellant during the course of investigation, being Rs.7.5 lakhs, which was ordered to be appropriated. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that -this is a case of premeditated modus operandi of under-invoicing the goods with the sole intention of evading the due customs duty and has directed the appellant to make pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and penalty for hearing of its appeal.
2. On query from the Bench, the appellants Counsel informed that their appeal is still pending before the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Heard learned AR for Revenue.
4. In view of the legislative intent under amended Section 129A, appellant is required to deposit 7.5% of either duty or penalty, for hearing of the appeal. We find that in the case of the appellant, they have deposited about 20% of the amount of duty. In this view of the matter, we set aside the stay order (interim order) dated 16.7.2014 and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeal on merits and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
4. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. The appellant is also directed to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a copy of this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt and pray for opportunity of personal hearing, for disposal on merits.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sinha
3
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