2014 (2) TMI 220 - HC - Customs

Court overturns denial of waiver, orders appeal without deposit. Relief granted due to substantial payment.

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - TMI Issues:1. Petitioner's request for waiver of balance pre-deposit rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Appellate Commissioner's refusal to grant relief leading to petitioner's appeal not being considered.3. Whether the Commissioner acted within his discretion in denying the waiver.4. Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the impugned order.Analysis:1. The petitioner was aggrieved by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting their request for waiver of balance pre-deposit amounting to Rs.34,77,62,926/- along with interest. The petitioner imported concentrated alcoholic beverage, and the assessment in question related to the period from 4th May, 2001 to December 2010. The Appellate Commissioner noted that the total liability determined was Rs.4,14,05,57,910/-, out of which a significant amount had already been paid by the petitioner. Despite this, the Commissioner refused to grant any relief, leading to the petitioner's appeal not being considered at all.2. The revenue's counsel argued that the Commissioner acted within his rights to exercise discretion in denying the waiver. However, the Court observed that the petitioner had already deposited over 92% of the assessed liabilities, amounting to over Rs.380 crores. The Court found that the Commissioner's approach would result in defeating the petitioner's right to appeal, and there was no evidence of mis-declaration to justify denying relief to the petitioner.3. After careful consideration of the submissions and the impugned orders, the Court set aside the impugned order that refused the petitioner's request for waiver of the deposit amount. The Court directed the Appellate Commissioner to consider the arguments of the parties in the petitioner's appeal promptly, within 4 months from the judgment date, and communicate the orders directly to the parties. The Court held that there was no overwhelming interest in denying the relief sought by the petitioner.4. In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Appellate Commissioner to consider the petitioner's appeal without the requirement of the balance pre-deposit amount. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to provide the necessary relief to the petitioner and ensure that their appeal is duly considered within a specified timeframe.