Shri. Haren Choksey vs Commissioner Of Customs(Import), ...
- CitationAppeal No. C/86828/13-MUM
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a stay order has already fixed the pre-deposit payable as a condition of hearing an appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, and the appellant has complied with it, the appellate authority cannot reject the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit and must decide it on merits; where the first-appellate authority has rejected the appeal solely on pre-deposit grounds without reaching the merits, the matter is to be remanded to that authority to decide on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. 92/MCH/ADC/BN/Gr. VB/2013 dtd. 4/2/3013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I )
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, 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 :
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?
=======================================================
Shri. Haren Choksey :
Appellant VS
Commissioner of Customs(Import), Mumbai :
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. Anil Balani, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. M.K. Mall, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 13/2/2015 Date of decision: 13/2/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. 92/MCH/ADC/BN/Gr. VB/2013 dtd. 4/2/3013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I, wherein the appeal of the appellant was rejected for non compliance of the pre-deposit in terms of Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Shri. Anil Balani, Ld Counsel for the appellant submits that this Tribunal vide stay order No. S/1239/13/SMB/C-IV dated 30/8/2013 directed the appellant to deposit 10% of penalty, which has been deposited and compliance already made. He submits that since Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the merit of the case and rejected the appeal only on non-compliance of the pre-deposit, matter may be sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals)
3. Shri. M.K. Mall, Ld. Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. Considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that this Tribunal after taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case directed appellant to make deposit of Rs. 10,000/- against penalty imposed of Rs. One lakh in the original order. I find that this deposit already made by the appellant and it is sufficient for hearing the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). I therefore remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass the order on merit without insisting any further pre-deposit. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated in court)
Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk
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