High Court upholds challenge against recovery notice by Customs Commissioner. Petitioner seeks appeal condonation before CESTAT. The High Court upheld the challenge against a recovery notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner, who had not paid the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
High Court upholds challenge against recovery notice by Customs Commissioner. Petitioner seeks appeal condonation before CESTAT.
The High Court upheld the challenge against a recovery notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner, who had not paid the predeposit amount leading to a rejected appeal, sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal before CESTAT. The petitioner, having already remitted an amount exceeding the pre-deposit requirement, was directed to deposit an additional sum within a specified timeframe to lift the attachment on bank accounts pending the appeal outcome. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Issues: Challenge to recovery notice; Non-payment of predeposit amount; Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Protection from recovery; Deposit amount for lifting attachment.
The judgment delivered by the High Court pertained to a challenge against a recovery notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had been rejected earlier due to non-payment of the predeposit amount, a decision that had become final. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the appellate authority's order due to relocating the office and only became aware of it upon receiving the recovery notice through a customs broker. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) along with a request for condonation of a 1930-day delay, which was pending consideration.
Regarding protection from recovery, the petitioner had already remitted around Rs. 4 lakhs, exceeding the 7.5% pre-deposit requirement for CESTAT. The court directed the petitioner to deposit an additional Rs. 5 lakhs within four weeks to lift the attachment on bank accounts, with this payment subject to the outcome of the pending appeal before CESTAT. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without imposing any costs.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
