Pre-deposit requirement under customs law upheld where stay-stage remand was found unwarranted on the recorded facts.

CESTAT Mumbai held that a stay-stage appeal was not fit for remand without compliance with pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The majority and Third Member found that alleged denial of natural justice, including non-supply of documents, rejection of Chartered Engineers' reports, and refusal of cross-examination, did not justify remand on the facts recorded. The controversy was directed to be dealt with within the stay applications, and the appellants were required to make the prescribed pre-deposits. The Member (Judicial) dissented and favoured remand without pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals, heard at the stay stage, should be allowed by way of remand without insisting on pre-deposit, or whether the appellants should be directed to make pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The majority held that the case was not fit for remand at the stay stage. The plea of denial of natural justice on account of non-supply of documents, rejection of Chartered Engineers' reports, and refusal of cross-examination was found insufficient to justify remand in the facts as recorded. The Third Member agreed with the view that the controversy had to be addressed within the framework of the stay applications and that the direction to make pre-deposit was proper.

Conclusion: The appellants were directed to make the prescribed pre-deposits, and the proposal to remand the matter without pre-deposit was rejected.

Concurring Opinion: The Member (Technical) and the Third Member held that remand at the stay stage was unwarranted and that pre-deposit should be enforced. Dissenting Opinion: The Member (Judicial) favoured allowing the appeals by remand without pre-deposit.

---