TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT"] titled AS Raj International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and Customs Appeal No. C/204/2009-CU((DB) titled G & S International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, whereby, the learned CESTAT dismissed the appeals. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. Appellants M/s. G & S International, New Delhi (IEC No. 0502009713) and A's Raj International, New Delhi (IEC No. 0599033983) were engaged in exports. Such exports were made under Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme ["DEPB"] and Drawback Scheme. On the basis of an information that the appellants were engaged in fraudulent exports of Shawls and Readymade garments to Commonwealth of Independent States countries (CIS) via UAE, inve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated in terms of section 121 of Customs Act, 1962. e) Why penalty should not be imposed on these under section 114 of the Custom Act, 1962. f) Why goods exported by them and mis-declared in terms of description & value should not be confiscated in absentia for violations discussed here in above under the provisions of section 113 (d), (h), (i & ii) and (k) of the Customs Act 1962." 3. SCNs were adjudicated vide Order-in-Original (OIO) No. JJ/ACE/21/2008 dated 30.09.2008 holding as under:- "(a) The Drawback amounting to Rs. 67,56,033/- in the matter of M/s. G & S International (As detailed in Annexure-1) and Drawback amounting to Rs. 1,00,05,250/- in the matter of M/s. A's Raj International (as detailed in A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (f) Since M/s. G & S International is a proprietorship firm under proprietorship of Mr. Sita Ram Agarwal, the Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 30 Lakhs only on Mr. Sita Ram Agarwal under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. (g) Since M/s. A's Raj International is a proprietorship firm under proprietorship of Mr. Rajesh Agarwal, the Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs only on Mr. Rajesh Agarwal under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. (h) Since M/s. Sherya Overseas is a proprietorship firm under proprietorship of Mr. Pramod Garg, the Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty of Rs. 3 Lakhs only on Mr. Pramod Garg under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. (i) the Adjudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009, appellants/exporters have filed the present appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. Both the appeals were admitted and by the order dated 24.05.2020, following question of law was formulated. "a. Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the deposit order dated 17.06.2009 in view of the provisions of Section 129 (2A) read with proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962?" SUBMISSIONS 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that right of appeal provided under Section 129E is a statutory right and failure to make pre-deposit provides limited right to the respondents to recover the amount of penalty and drawback from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause undue hardship to such person, the [Commissioner (Appeals)] or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of revenue.] [Provided further that the where an application is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for dispensing with the deposit of duty and interest demanded or penalty levied under the first proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing." 11. It is pertinent to note that Section 129E of the Act as it stood prior to its Amendment by Finance Act (No. 2) of 2014, conferred a discretion on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, failing which the Appellate Tribunal is fully competent to reject the appeal. See, in this connection, the observations of this Court in respect of Section 129 prior to substitution of Chapter XV by the Finance Act, 1980 in Navinchandra Chhotelal v. Central Board of Excise & Customs. The proviso, however, gives power to the Appellate Authority to dispense with such deposit unconditionally or subject to such conditions in cases of undue hardships. It is a matter of judicial discretion of the Appellate Authority. ***** ***** ***** 8. ......... Here the right that was granted, was a right held with a condition. There was no question of change of that right. In the instant case the only substantive right is the rig....