TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such, it prima facie cannot involve any substantial question of law, so as to enable the petitioner to avail and maintain the remedy by way of appeal. That apart, the relief sought for by the petitioner vide relief No.(ii) to direct the appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeal on time, cannot be the subject matter of any appeal, as it can be dealt with only by issuance of a writ of mandamus. petitioner is entitled to claim set off, in respect of the payment already effected, pursuant to judgment to an extent of 25%. It is made clear that the petitioner is required to satisfy only the balance 25%, as ordered by the Tribunal - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - WP(C).No. 24884 of 2014 (I) - - - Dated:- 15-10-2014 - MR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t.P6 judgment was passed in W.P.(C)No.17391 of 2013, whereby the condition was modified and the liability was scaled down to 25%; simultaneously directing the appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeal as specified. The appeal came to be dismissed as per Ext.P9 order dated 09.10.2013; being aggrieved of which, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Ext.P10 appeal, along with Ext.P11 petition for stay. It is stated that the petitioner had also produced true copy of the Balance Sheet and statement of Profit and Loss Account for the year 2012-13 showing the financial base/position of the petitioner as borne by Ext.P12. However, the Tribunal passed Ext.P13 order dated 30.07.2014, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e scope of the provision is entirely different. After making a comparative analysis with regard to the provisions of FEMA, Customs Act and Central Excise Act, the learned Counsel points out that an appeal is maintainable under the Customs Act, only if there is a 'substantial question of law' and that, since the condition imposed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P13 does not involve any such substantial question of law; appeal is not maintainable. 6. Ongoing through the decisions cited across the Bar, this Court finds that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the law settled by the Supreme Court and the position made clear by the Madras High Court. The crux of the decision as discussed by the Madras High Court is only t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lve any substantial question of law, so as to enable the petitioner to avail and maintain the remedy by way of appeal. That apart, the relief sought for by the petitioner vide relief No.(ii) to direct the appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeal on time, cannot be the subject matter of any appeal, as it can be dealt with only by issuance of a writ of mandamus. 9. However, coming to the materials on record, this Court finds that Ext.P13 order only says that the petitioner had to satisfy 50% of the duty payable. Duty payable means the duty which has been fixed by the assessing authority as per Ext.P4 order. Originally, while passing the interim order in the first round of appeal, though 50% of the said duty was ordered to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
