TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court quashes orders for non-payment, remands for further proceedings.</h1> The High Court quashed the impugned orders rejecting the revision application and appeal for failure to make mandatory pre-deposits under Section 129E of ... Pre-deposit - Making pre-deposit after rejection of application for Seeking extension of time to make a pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 and remanding the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- Since the mandatory pre-deposit has been made by the Petitioners, under the provision of Section 129E of the Customs Act, we hereby quash the impugned order dated 21.01.2021 (Annexure ‘A’ to the memo of the petition) as well as order dated 16.02.2018 passed by Respondent No.2 (Annexure ‘C’ herein). We also remand the matter back to Respondent No.2 for hearing the appeal on merits. Matter restored before the Revisionary Authority. Issues:1. Challenge to rejection of revision application for want of mandatory pre-deposit.2. Challenge to rejection of appeal for want of mandatory pre-deposit.3. Quashing of impugned orders.4. Remand of the matter for hearing on merits.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to rejection of revision application for want of mandatory pre-depositThe petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Revisionary Authority rejecting their request for an extension of time to make a pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners had sought a remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) subject to pre-deposit, which was denied. The High Court, after hearing the counsels and reviewing the challans confirming the pre-deposit made by the petitioners, quashed the impugned order dated 21.01.2021 and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing on merits.Issue 2: Challenge to rejection of appeal for want of mandatory pre-depositThe petitioners had earlier appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) against an order-in-original related to alleged overvaluation of exports. However, their appeal was dismissed due to their failure to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty or penalty as required by Section 129E of the Customs Act. Subsequently, the petitioners sought a period of two months for making the pre-deposit, which was rejected. The High Court, upon confirming the pre-deposit made by the petitioners, quashed the order-in-appeal dated 16.02.2018 and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh hearing on merits.Issue 3: Quashing of impugned ordersThe High Court, after verifying the pre-deposit made by the petitioners in compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act, quashed the impugned order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the Revisionary Authority and the order-in-appeal dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court held that since the mandatory pre-deposit had been made, the impugned orders were set aside.Issue 4: Remand of the matter for hearing on meritsThe High Court remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing the appeal on merits. It was clarified that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide the appeal in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
