Mr. Rajesh Hirdani (In Appeal No. ... vs Cc (Acc & Import) Mumbai
- CitationAppeal No. C/86467 & 86468/14
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) could not dismiss an appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement without first deciding it on merits, where the sale proceeds of the confiscated goods are already in the hands of the Revenue and the Revenue's interest is therefore secured; in such circumstances no pre-deposit is required and the matter must be remanded for a decision on merits after hearing the appellant.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTOM-AMP-APP-562/13-14 dated 05.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
======================================================
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?
======================================================
Mr. Rajesh Hirdani (In Appeal No. C/86468/14) Mr. Leelaram A. Asudani (In Appeal No. C/86467/14) Appellant
Vs.
CC (ACC & Import) Mumbai Respondent
Appearance:
Shri N.K. Tiwari, Advocate for Appellant Shri Chatru Singh, Asst. Commr. (A.R.) for Respondent
CORAM:
SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing: 18.06.2015 Date of Decision: 18.06.2015
ORDER NO.
Per: Anil Choudhary:
Heard the parties.
2. Penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- each have been imposed on the appellants alongwith redemption fine of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Goods, valued at Rs. 27.14 lakhs are lying confiscated with Revenue. The goods have been auctioned, and Revenue has received Rs. 27,00,000/- (approx), being sale proceeds. The Commissioner (Appeals) have dismissed the appeals, without entering into merits, for non-making of pre-deposit. The appeals are allowed by way of remand, with a direction to hear the appellants and pass order on merit. No pre-deposit is required, as interest of Revenue is secured, as whole of Rs. 27 Lakhs is lying with it.
(Pronounced in open Court)
(Anil Choudhary)
Member (Judicial)
Sp
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