Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1159 - HC - CustomsDemand of pre-deposit - other parties got stay on similar issue - But appellant could not - Review of order - alternative remedy - conditional order of stay - dismissal order of restoration - Does an alternative remedy affect this Court’s power of judicial review? - . Does the Ext.P4 sustain itself on its demanding pre-deposit? Does a writ petition lie against the Exts.P4 and P12 interlocutory orders, just because the petitioner could not treat them as giving rise to substantial questions of law? Held that:- To maintain an appeal the appellant must satisfy the High Court that impugned order raises a substantial question of law. Then, the High Court formulates an issue, as it does under section 100 of CPC, and adjudicates. Now, the question is, can an interlocutory order, too, give rise to a substantial question of law? Alternatively, should we treat section 130 of the Act as not an efficacious alternative remedy vis-ŕ-vis an interim order the Appellate Tribunal passes? In M/s Punalur Paper Mill Ltd. V Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs [2014 (2) TMI 1250 - KERALA HIGH COURT], the Court considered writ petitions on interlocutory orders. The issue was the restoration of appeal. This Court, per learned Single Judges, has held that even as for restoring the appeals (that is, interlocutory orders), the petitioners could have the remedy of statutory appeal under section 130., but not the writ petition. What has Indus impugned? - Held that:- Ext.P3 is the order-in-original. Indus questioned this order in appeal, CA No.C/21292 of 2014, before the CESTAT. Ext.P4 is the order the Tribunal passed on Indus’s stay petition: it directed Indus to deposit ten crore rupees as a precondition to have the appeal entertained. Indus could not comply with the direction; that is, depositing ten crore rupees in 12 weeks. So the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. Then, Indus filed a restoration petition before the Tribunal, which dismissed it, too, through the Ext.P12 order, dt.05.02.2018 - I reckon Indus made a common cause with eleven other courier agencies; they all seem to have a similar grievance. Of the 12 courier services, two approached this Court at the stage of show cause, filed writ petitions, and obtained a stay. Others approached the CESTAT. Eight had their cases remanded to the primary authority. One courier agency has still got its case pending before the Tribunal but seems to have suffered no conditional order of pre-deposit. It is said to enjoy a stay, too. Only Indus faced the problem of precondition. Equity may demand that Indus may have its case adjudicated on merits. But judicial discipline demands scrupulous compliance with the precedential dictate. Petition dismissed.
|