TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>CESTAT to Hear Appeal on Customs Penalty Without Pre-Deposit Due to Financial Hardship; Focus on Accessible Appeal Process.</h1> <h3>Ashish Bansal Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) & Anr.</h3> The HC directed the CESTAT to hear the petitioner's appeal against a penalty imposed under the Customs Act without requiring a pre-deposit, considering ... Seeking waiver of any pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 for maintaining an appeal - Penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act - Constitutional validity of Sections 86, 87, 88, 94 & 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 - HELD THAT:- The penalty has been imposed on the petitioner solely on the basis of a string of statements recorded in the said proceedings. Considering the financial status of the petitioner as well as the manner in which the penalty had been imposed, the insistence on pre-deposit would effectively render the petitioner’s remedy of an appeal before the learned CESTAT, illusory - it is considered apposite to direct the learned CESTAT to consider the petitioner’s appeal on merits, without insisting on any pre-deposit. Petition is disposed off. Issues involved: Impugning order-in-original, Constitutional validity of sections of Finance Act, 2022, Show cause notice challenge.Impugning order-in-original: The petitioner challenged an order-in-original dated 18.12.2020, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi. The penalty of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- was imposed under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act. The impugned order stemmed from officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence boarding a train based on specific intelligence, resulting in the apprehension of an individual carrying foreign-origin gold bars without proper documentation. Statements from individuals allegedly linked to the petitioner formed the basis of the penalty, which the petitioner disputed, providing evidence of his financial status through income tax returns and bank statements. The High Court directed the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to consider the petitioner's appeal without requiring any pre-deposit, considering the financial circumstances and manner of penalty imposition.Constitutional validity challenge: The petitioner also impugned the constitutional validity of Sections 86, 87, 88, 94 & 97 of the Finance Act, 2022. However, the focus of the petition was primarily on challenging the specific order-in-original and seeking relief from pre-deposit for appeal to CESTAT. The High Court did not express any opinion on the constitutional validity challenge, directing CESTAT to consider the appeal without influence from the court's observations.Show cause notice challenge: Additionally, the petitioner assailed a show cause notice dated 18.05.2018, which was part of the broader challenge to the order-in-original. The penalty imposed on the petitioner was based on a series of statements recorded during the proceedings, linking the petitioner to individuals involved in the incident. The petitioner denied any association with these individuals or involvement in related transactions, presenting evidence of his income tax returns and bank account statements to support his claim of innocence. The High Court's decision primarily focused on the procedural aspect of pre-deposit for appeal, ensuring the petitioner's right to appeal before CESTAT without financial impediments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
