TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before it on 07.07.2015 was that the provision of section 129E of the Customs Act, as it stood prior to 06.08.2014, would be applicable and so the Tribunal would have the power to waive the requirement of pre-deposit subject to such conditions as it thought fit. This contention was advanced for the reason that though the order was passed by the adjudicating authority on 10.10.2014, but the show cause notice was issued prior to 06.08.2014 on 10.06.2014. The submission was not accepted by the Tribunal, in view of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh Yadav versus Union of India and others [2015 (7) TMI 304 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], and the appeal was dismissed. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court and the High Court, by an order dated 20.10.2015, dismissed the appeal after holding that the amended provision of section 129A of the Customs Act would be applicable since the order was passed by the adjudicating authority after 06.08.2014. The Delhi High Court relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh Yadav and the relevant portion of the order passed by the Delhi High Court, which is reported in 2015 (326) E.L.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the Delhi High Court that the demand was inflated by almost seventeen times and instead raised a submission that the pre-amended provision of section 129A of the Customs Act would be applicable since the show cause notice was issued prior to 06.08.2014. Paragraph 22 of the application, which deals with this aspect, is reproduced below :- "It is most humbly mentioned here that the learned Advocate of the Appellants did not argue on the main point namely, that the customs duty demand is inflated seventeen times the actual duty demand and contested on a wrong issue that was clear from the language of the amended Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 itself and hence the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Courts dismissed the petitions filed by the Appellants on the incorrect issue raised by the Advocate. Thus the Appellants got wrong advice of the learned Advocate who contested their case in the Courts (ibid)". (emphasis supplied) 7. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the application thereafter state that because of financial hardship the appellant could not make the deposit even after the dismissal of the appeal in 2015 and it is only when the applicant recovered from the financial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion filed against the order passed by the Tribunal in Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah was dismissed by the Bombay High Court [Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah versus Union of India - 2012 (282) E.L.T. 217 (Bom.)]. 10. The submissions advanced by learned counsel of the applicant as also the learned authorized representative appearing for the Department have been considered. 11. As noticed above, the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Tribunal rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the un-amended provisions of section 129A of the Customs Act would be applicable. It is also clear from the order that learned counsel of the appellant had appeared on that date before the Tribunal and made submissions. 12. It is in this context that it has to be examined whether the application filed under rule 20 of the 1982 Rules would be maintainable. Rule 20 of the 1982 Rules is, therefore, reproduced below :- "Rule 20. Action on appeal for appellant's default - Where on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal or on any other day to which such hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the un-amended provision of section 129E of the Customs Act would be applicable and that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that amended provision of section 129E of the Customs Act would be applicable. This contention was considered at length by Delhi High Court and after relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh Yadav dismissed the appeal for the reason that the statutory requirement contemplated under section 129E of the Customs Act, as it stood after 06.08.2014, had not been complied with. The appellant filed Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 23.01.2017 and even the Review Petition filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 06.12.2017. 18. Learned counsel for the applicant has, however, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kissan Gramodyog Sansthan to contend that even after the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court and the dismissal of the Civil Appeal by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal can restore the appeal and hear it on merits as the applicant has deposited the statutory amount on 09.09.2020. 19. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Kissan Gramodyog Sansthan was rendered i....