2009 (3) TMI 2 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal on Customs Duty Waiver; Emphasizes Compliance and Procedural Adherence

M/s. Alex Enterprises & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal's decision on the waiver of duty amount and ... Application for waiver – appellant’s submission that case has not been heard on merits, and the effect of Rule 16(a) of C & CE Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 have not been considered, is without any substance - question of applicability of Rule 16(a) could have been gone only into the appeal filed before CEGAT - appellants adopted various dilatory methods - present appeal is abuse of the process of law - conduct of the appellant disentitle them from any relief - therefore this appeal is dismissed Issues:Challenge to Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal judgment on waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty.Interpretation of Rule 16(a) of Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995.Allegations of adopting dilatory methods and abuse of process of law.Consideration of merits and applicability of Rule 16(a) in the appeal process.Analysis:The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty. The appellants sought relief under Rule 16(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, claiming entitlement to benefits not considered by CEGAT. The Tribunal had ordered the appellants to make a pre-deposit of the drawback amount, considering the financial hardship pleaded by the appellants. However, the Tribunal noted that the sale proceeds of the consignments had not been repatriated to India, leading to the order for repayment of the drawback amount. Despite the financial circumstances, the Tribunal directed the pre-deposit of the drawback amount, with a waiver of the balance amount and penalty pending appeal disposal.The appellants were accused of adopting dilatory methods and dragging the case for nearly eight years, leading to various legal proceedings. The High Court extended the time for depositing the required amount, but the appellants failed to comply within the stipulated period. Subsequent applications for extension of time and review petitions were filed, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed due to non-compliance with the orders. The conduct of the appellants was deemed as an abuse of the legal process, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without considering the merits or the applicability of Rule 16(a) in the appeal process.Despite the appellant's argument that the case had not been heard on merits and requested more time for deposit, the Court found no substance in the pleas. It was emphasized that the question of the applicability of Rule 16(a) could have been addressed during the appeal process before CEGAT, which was not the stage under consideration. The conduct of the appellants throughout the legal proceedings disentitled them from any relief. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with legal orders and avoiding dilatory tactics in legal proceedings to ensure the proper administration of justice.