TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r penalty levied - Although the Section does not expressly provide for rejection of the appeal for non-deposit of duty or penalty, yet it makes it obligatory on the appellant to deposit the duty or penalty, pending the appeal, failing which the Appellate Tribunal was fully competent to reject the appeal. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Opportunity to Cross-Examine the Witnesses – Held that:- The proviso to Section l29E of the Act gives discretion to the Tribunal in cases of undue hardships to condone the obligation to deposit or to reduce - It was a discretion vested in an obligation to act judicially and properly - In the facts and circumstances of the case and all the relevant factors, namely, the probability of the prima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords. These two appeals are under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from the orders dated 21.9.2012 passed in Appeal No. C/2400-2401/2012 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the "Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Act read with the stay order. Since the questions involved in these two appeals are identical, as such, they are being decided by a common order. On 9.6.2010, at 15.00 hrs. police officers of Gulariha Police Station intercepted the truck, bearing registration No. UP-75-M-872, at Baragdahi about 9.30 P.M., in which, foreign beetle nut was loaded, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals), which was rejected vide order dated 3.5.2012, against which, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration all the relevant material facts and factors, by its order dated 21.9.2012, declined to interfere and dismissed the appeals for non- compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have appealed to this Court. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, we think it appropriate to reproduce Section 129 E of the Act, which is as under : "129E. Deposit, pending appeal, of duty and interest, demanded or penalty levied.-Where in any appeal under this Chap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing which the Appellate Tribunal is fully competent to reject the appeal. The case of the appellants is that the learned Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing the appellants to cross-examine the witnesses. From perusal of the records, it reflects that in the impugned order, the Tribunal noted that vide order dated 29.8.2012, Sri Raees Ahmad was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- and Sri Nafees Ahmad was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the said deposit were required to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing the order but even then, Counsel for the appellants appeared before the Tribunal has submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
