TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Form-CAI that the appellant undertook to pay the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the disputed amount but did not make any deposit to the said effect. Obviously, on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to comply with the above referred mandatory requirement of pre-deposit, the third respondent-appellate authority, by way of the order, dated 03.11.2020, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner herein in limini on the sole ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 129-E of the Act. It is also not in controversy that once again on 03.12.2020, by complying with the said mandatory requirement, as stipulated under Section 129-E of the Act, petitioner herein preferred the appeal. The filing of appeal in the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s)-third respondent herein, refusing to admit the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard Sri P. Rosi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Special Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise, apart from perusing the entire material available on record. 3. The facts and circumstances leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as infra: The Additional Director, office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit-fifth respondent herein issued a show cause notice bearing F.No. DRI/ HZU/VJRU/48/ENQ-05(INT-04)/2018/1354, dated 20.08.2018, under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation Act, 1992 as well as the Foreign Exchange Management (Export Import of currency) Regulation, 2000. iv. I also order for confiscation of packing material used for concealment of the seized gold, Indian and Foreign Current under Section 118 and Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. v. I impose a penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakhs only) under Section 112 (b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sri Guduru Chandra Sekhar for the offences, as discussed above. vi. I impose a penalty of ₹ 62,013/- (rupees sixty two thousand and thirteen only) under Section 114 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on Sri Guduru Chandra Sekhar for the offences, as discussed above. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason assigned by the office of the third respondent in declining to admit the appeal is highly arbitrary, illegal and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act in general and Sections 128 and 129 of the Act in particular. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that, since the earlier Memo of Appeal, dated 03.11.2020, was rejected not on merits but only on the sole ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 129-E of the Act, the third respondent herein grossly erred in refusing to admit the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that, in view of the notification, dated 30.09.2020, issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29 of the Act. 10. Section 128 of the Act enables any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act by an officer of the Customs, lower in rank than the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, to file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Section 129-E of the Act, which came to be inserted by virtue of Act 25/2014 with effect from 06.08.2014, mandates, in clear and unequivocal terms, that the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not entertain any appeal unless the appellant deposits 7.5% of the duty. 11. In the instant case, though the petitioner herein initially filed appeal on 17.08.2020, before the third respondent, it is clear from Form-CAI that the appellant undertook to pay the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said order was not passed on merits of the matter but only on the sole ground of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit. Admittedly, once again, on 03.12.2020, after scrupulously adhering to the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit, petitioner herein submitted the appeal once again, but the third respondent herein, vide the impugned letter, declined to admit the said appeal on the ground that the petitioner herein would not be entitled under the Government Orders to file appeals repeatedly. In the considered opinion of this Court, the filing of appeal in the instant case would not be regarded as filing of appeals repeatedly since the earlier order came to be passed by the third responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
