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.
The HC dismissed the petition under Article 226, refusing mandamus relief to restrain the 2nd respondent (CESTAT) from insisting on the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129-E(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that Section 129-E requires deposit of 7.5% of the duty/penalty claimed (capped at Rs.10 crore) before entertaining an appeal and declined to exercise discretionary waiver of the pre-deposit on the facts, noting the petitioner's established commercial status and lack of insolvency. Technical disputes as to classification/exemption (crude palmolein v. crude palm oil) were held to be matters for statutory authorities and experts, not for the HC to determine.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.