Court denies waiver of pre-deposit in Customs Act appeal, upholding Supreme Court orders

The Court refused to grant a waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 for an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Petitioner's inability to meet the pre-deposit due to frozen assets and prohibition from parting with properties was noted, but the Court declined to interfere with the Supreme Court's orders. The request to withdraw a deposited amount to fulfill the pre-deposit requirements was also denied, leading to the dismissal of the petition based on the statutory conditions and restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court's order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Waiver of mandatory pre-deposit under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 for an appeal filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Petitioner's inability to meet the pre-deposit due to frozen assets and prohibition from parting with properties.
3. Request to withdraw a deposited amount for meeting the pre-deposit requirements.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner filed a petition seeking waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the duty demand under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 for an appeal filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Petitioner had previously withdrawn a petition challenging the same order before the Goa Bench of the Court, and the current petition was filed after a notice from the Tribunal regarding the appeal's maintainability. The Court noted that the right of appeal is conditional and can only be exercised upon fulfilling the statutory conditions, citing precedents to support the constitutionality of the pre-deposit requirement. Therefore, the Court refused to issue a writ directing the Tribunal to entertain the appeal without complying with the pre-deposit request.

2. The Petitioner claimed it was impossible to meet the pre-deposit requirement due to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order freezing all assets of the Petitioner and its group, along with a prohibition on parting with any properties. The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's grievance but stated its inability to interfere with the Supreme Court's orders. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the Petitioner's plea for waiver of the pre-deposit.

3. The Petitioner requested to withdraw an amount deposited in the Court from the sale of a vessel to meet the pre-deposit requirements. However, the Court mentioned that due to the aforementioned Supreme Court order regarding frozen assets and properties, it could not entertain this plea. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition considering all the reasons discussed, including the inability to meet the pre-deposit and the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court's order.

---