2025 (1) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ERY CELL) JAFAR KANNAYIL PALLIPURAYI Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE COCHIN ZONAL UNIT , THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) NISSAR MADAPATT PATTIKKARAYALAPPIL Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE COCHIN ZONAL UNIT , THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) MOHAMMED VALAPPIL Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN ZONAL UNIT, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (REVENUE RECOVERY CELL) THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FOR THE PETITIONER : BY ADVS. NABIL KHADER, M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, O.A.NURIYA, RUKSANA SATHAR P.A. FOR THE RESPONDENT : BY ADVS. P.R.SREEJITH....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....even-and-a-half per cent of the amount. Under the earlier regime, in other words the entire amount which was in dispute had to be deposited. Under the earlier avatar of Section 129-E, the lawgiver also clothed the appellate body with power as contained in the first proviso. The first proviso provided the Commissioner (Appeals) or as the case may be, Appellate Tribunal the power to dispense with such deposit, subject to conditions as he deemed fit to impose to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. (Emphasis supplied) 8. The question whether it is undue hardship has been the subject-matter of the judgment of this Court in Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE [Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE, (2006) 13 SCC 347], wherein it, inter alia, held as follow: "....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....legislature that the waiver of pre-deposit, which was being resorted to, quite often by the courts of law, needed to be amended to make the pre-deposit mandatory. Thus, after the Amendment Act came into force, no discretion is available with the courts of law to waive the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit of 7.5% even if it is assumbed (sic) to be onerous in the circumstances of the case. In the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents ie. Dish TV India's case (supra) after considering the decisions of the Delhi High Court itself, the Division Bench of the said Court came to the conclusion that after the amendment, there is no question for any waiver of pre-deposit, and that law does not permit such waiver. When the Stat....