2013 (5) TMI 806

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....interest at the rate of 24%/15% per annum from the date of clearance of the goods till the date of payment under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 in terms of the conditions of the notification dated 5-6-1995. 3. The aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port) has been questioned before the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The same has been dealt with by the order dated 3-9-2012 passed by the CESTAT. The CESTAT has ordered 75% of waiver and has directed 25% of the amount of duty to be deposited by 4-2-2013. The order has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the intra Court appeal has been preferred. 4. Shri Bhaskar Sen, learned Senior ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the non-compliance of the order, the appeal has already been dismissed. 6. After hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the parties at length, we are of the considered opinion that no case has been made out so as to make interference in the impugned order passed by the CESTAT which has not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. The order is a discretionary one and when facts and circumstances of the case have been considered by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, such interim order does not call for interference by way of judicial review by this Court. We find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. No perversity or patent illegality is apparent in the order passed by the CESTAT.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re-deposit of 25% of the duty amount, thus, there is no case for interference applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta (supra). 9. Coming to the submissions that the appellant is a sick industry, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in Metal Box India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.), payment of principal deposit covered under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not fall under any of the enumerated categories in Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Similar is the case for duty liability under the Customs Act. Protection thereunder is therefore not available to the appe....