2024 (1) TMI 739

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Sushil Ratanlal Garg are aggrieved, inter alia, from the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein their appeals were rejected under Section 129E for lack of mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5%, as proof of mandatory pre-deposit had not been furnished. Appellants on the other hand, plead that they had deposited a sum of Rs. 7,81,861/- towards Customs Duty of Rs. 41,01,836/- which is reflected at paragraph 15 of the Order-In-Original, and the same was paid during investigation stage and therefore should have been taken into account towards mandatory deposit by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, Commissioner (Appeals) not taking the aforesaid amount paid during investigation into account dismissed their appeals under Section 129E without considerin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty Payable 4101836 From the above, it is obvious that the duty paid amount to the tune of Rs.7,81,861/- has already been adjusted towards total duty liability. Therefore, the amount of duty paid Rs.7,81,861/- cannot be adjusted towards the differential duty payment as it is already been adjusted as mentioned at Annexure-A to the show cause notice. So, appellant-1 should have paid 7.5% of the differential customs duty of Rs.41,01,836/-. Also appellant-2 is required to pay 7.5% of the total penalty imposed on him vide impugned order. Vide letters dated 04.09.2018, appellant-1 was requested to deposit 75% of differential duty and appellant-2 was requested to deposit 7.5% of total penalty imposed on him. The appellants were again r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that the deposit made during investigation stage was sufficient compliance towards mandatory deposit and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have taken cognizance of the same and passed reasoned order rather than again insisting on pre deposit and denying them their legal remedy. 3. Learned AR justifies order of Commissioner (Appeals) by reiterating the same. Both sides also argued on merits. 4. Considered. We find that the claim of the appellant that they paid the duty amount of Rs. 7,81,861/- during investigation has not been considered properly by the Commissioner (Appeals). Specifically, their plea that as per Circular No. 984/08/2014-CE dated 16.09.2014 issued by CBEC the deposit made during the course of investigation....