Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (12) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dispose of the appeal pending before the first respondent in File No. C3/493/D/2002-Sea, on merits, and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without insisting on the petitioner making the pre-deposit. - 4129 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2008 - M. Jaichandren, J. [Order]. - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a manufacturer of steel products having high power induction furnaces. The petitioner also imports steel products for use in the manufacture of finished products. The petitioner had entered into a High Sea sales agreement with M/s. PEC Limit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... el ingots resulting in short levy of Rs. 24,45,580/-. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had filed a reply, dated 25-4-2001, to the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Appeals (Group 7A), wherein it was submitted that the assessment done earlier is in order, as the imported item was not ingot but it was only 're-melting Ingots' eligible for concessional rate of duty as charged. The petitioner had also submitted that the Bill of Entry describes the imported goods as re-melting ingots. Thus, the re-melting ingots would also satisfy the conditions stipulated in Note 1(g) of Chapter 72 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Therefore, there was no short collection of duty, it was also stated that similar goods r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondent had not considered the various aspects of facts and law, as laid down by the various decisions of the High Courts and the Tribunals. The first respondent Tribunal ought to have seen that the petitioner had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner. Further, the first respondent ought to have noted that irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner if it had to comply with the pre-deposit requirement before the appeal, filed before the first respondent, was heard. However, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 27-1-2003, under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, refusing to waive the pre-deposit amount ordered to be paid by the petitioner, in such circumstances, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... void of merits. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on a decision of the Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Adani Exports Limited - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 164 = 2007 (13) SCC 207, in support of his contention that there cannot be dispensation of the pre-deposit by the petitioner before the appeal, pending on the file of the first respondent, is heard and disposed of, on merits. He had also relied on the decision of the High Court of Mysore, made in V. Vembu Iyer v. Union of India and others [1984 (15) E.L.T. 125 (Mysore)] to show as to how the discretion should be exercised by the Appellate Authority to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty or penalty or to reduce the quantum. 8. Further, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... request of such waiver or reduction by showing proper reasons, such exercise of power should be based on sufficient reasons. However, in the present case the first respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner to waive the pre-deposit amount, without giving proper reasons for such rejection. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the fact that this Court had granted an interim stay of the impugned order, which has been continuing till date and in view of the fact that the first respondent had passed the impugned order without giving sufficient reasons to reject the request of the petitioner to waive the pre-deposit, this Court is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates