Appeal dismissed; merger validity not reopened, leasehold rights transferred to corporate debtor formed liquidation estate; section 36(4)(a)(iv) inapp...
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.
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
