TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Section are not discretionary and the appellant is bound by the aforesaid provision. Taking note of the fact that in the order under review this Court has already referred to Section 129E of the Customs Act, there is no error apparent on the face of the order, which may call for the review of the same - Petition dismissed. - Review Petition No. 968 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2023 - Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar And Hon'ble Shri Justice Pranay Verma For the Petitioner : Shri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey - Advocate For the Respondents : Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by this Court in W.P. No.12344/2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been enacted. Under the new regime, on the one hand, the amount to be deposited to maintain the appeal has been reduced from 100% to 7.5% but the discretion which was made available to the appellate body to scale down the pre-deposit has been taken away. 10. The first proviso of Section 129E of the present Section enacts a limitation on the total amount which can be demanded by way of pre-deposit. The first proviso provides that the amount required to be deposited should not exceed Rs. 10 Crores. In this regard, the law giver has purported to grant relief to an appellant. The second proviso contemplates that Section 129(e) as substituted would not apply to stay applications and appeals which are pending before the Appellate Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich, in fact, appropriately would apply only to a case where the appellant is maintaining the appeal and he is called upon to pay the full amount under Section 129E under the earlier avtar. 12. We would think that the legislative intention would clearly be to not to allow the appellant to avail the benefit of the discretionary power available under the proviso to the substituted provision under Section 129E. When the appellant is not being called upon to pay the full amount but is only asked to pay the amount which is fixed under the substituted provision, we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant. However, in the interest of justice we extend the period for complying with Section 129E by a period of two months f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
