High Court upholds Customs Tribunal decision, appellant to deposit Rs.60 lakhs, granted payment extension.

M/s. SAFE EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS. COCHIN

M/s. SAFE EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS. COCHIN - TMI Issues:
Conditional interim order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Waiving pre-deposit but directing deposit of Rs.60 lakhs - Allegations against an officer of the department - Reliance on apex court decision in Benara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - Appreciation of materials by the Tribunal - Prima facie case found by the Tribunal - Modification of pre-deposit amount by the Tribunal - Plea for extension of time to make pre-deposit.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Kerala pertains to a Writ Appeal filed by the appellant challenging a conditional interim order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had waived the pre-deposit requirement but directed the appellant to deposit Rs.60 lakhs, a decision confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant raised various contentions against an officer of the department, accusing them of engaging in a witch hunt. However, it was noted that the said officer was not a party to the proceedings, and no concrete evidence was presented to support the allegations. The order in question was passed by the Commissioner after examining materials obtained from abroad, not by the accused officer. The appellant cited the apex court decision in Benara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise to argue that a mere cursory glance is insufficient when considering a waiver of pre-deposit.

Upon reviewing the judgment of the Single Judge and the Tribunal's order, the High Court found that a detailed analysis had been conducted, leading to the identification of a prima facie case in favor of the department. The Tribunal had imposed a condition for the deposit of Rs.60 lakhs, which was half of the total demand of duty and penalty. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the Single Judge's decision. However, in response to the appellant's request, the Court granted a six-week extension for making the modified pre-deposit amount. The Writ Appeal was disposed of, with each party bearing their respective costs.