2024 (10) TMI 1470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Admittedly, against the impugned order, the Petitioner has a remedy of a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Petitioner has already filed such an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). After filing such appeal, the Petitioner instituted the Writ Petition (L) No. 26365 of 2024 seeking a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear such appeal without insisting upon the mandatory deposit of Rs. 3.375 Crores corresponding to 7.5% of the penalty amount. 4. The Writ Petition (L) No. 26365 of 2024 was withdrawn by the Petitioner with liberty to file a fresh Petition after the said Petition was argued for some time. This is evident from the order dated 11 Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ances exist for deviating from the usual rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies. 8. We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that this is not a fit case to deviate from the usual rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies. 9. In the case of Manjeet Singh vs Union of India and others 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 11905, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in similar circumstances declined to deviate from the self-imposed restriction regarding exhaustion of alternate remedies. Even in that case, the complaint was about not granting cross-examination opportunities. The Co-ordinate Bench relied upon the decision of this Court in Haresh Nagindas Vora vs Union of India 2017 (353) ELT 154 (Bom) to hold that the Petitioner cannot ea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elief, but this time, from this Court. This is not permissible. 12. In Kotak Mahindra Bank Private Limited vs. Ambuj A. Kasliwal and others (2021) 3 SCC 549 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the context of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 has held that the High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit in its entirety, nor can it exercise discretion which is against the mandatory requirement of the statutory provision contained in Section 21 of the said Act. Section 21 of the said Act requires a pre-deposit of fifty percent of the debt due as a pre-condition for entertainment of an appeal. However, the Appellate Authority is given the discretion to reduce this amount upto 25% of the debt due upon an appropriate cas....