2000 (4) TMI 45 - HC - Central Excise

Court upholds Customs Tribunal decision on duty, fine, and penalty; petitioners must approach appropriate authority for relief

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Calcutta, which ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues:1. Review of an order passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Calcutta.2. Interpretation of tariff chapters for imposition of duty, fine, and penalty.3. Consideration of limitation in the case.4. Discretion to excuse pre-deposit for appealing against the order.5. Justification of the order passed by the Tribunal.6. Dismissal of the writ petition and the possibility of approaching the appropriate authority or Tribunal.Analysis:1. The writ petition arose from a review of an order by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Calcutta. The Tribunal imposed duty, fine, and penalty on the petitioners, who argued that their case falls under specific tariff chapters and not the one considered by the Authority. They sought to excuse pre-deposit for appealing against the order.2. The petitioners contended that the case falls under different tariff chapters than those applied by the Authority, leading to the imposition of duty, fine, and penalty. They argued that a strong prima facie case exists for excusing pre-deposit for filing an appeal. The issue of limitation was also raised, emphasizing that it was not considered by the Tribunal.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on various precedents to support the contention that pre-deposit can be excused when a strong prima facie case exists, including cases involving questions of limitation. The respondents argued that if judgments were already considered by the Tribunal, interference with the order of pre-deposit may not be warranted.4. The judge noted that no new case was presented during the review process, justifying the Tribunal's order. Regarding the question of limitation, it was clarified that the petitioner raised the issue during the original application, and the Tribunal had considered it.5. After considering the arguments and circumstances, the judge accepted the respondents' contention and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the amount of pre-deposit would not be condoned in this case. The dismissal did not prevent the petitioner from approaching the appropriate authority or Tribunal in the future.6. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were awarded, and xeroxed certified copies would be provided to the parties. All parties were instructed to act based on the signed copy of the operative portion of the judgment, subject to the satisfaction of the officer of the Court.