Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1967 (7) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bava. 2. The relevant facts are as follows : M/s. A.S. Bava, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is a firm of dealers in Tobacco. By two orders of adjudication, dated March 31, 1963, the Assistant Collector of Customs demanded the payment of duty under Rule 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944. The petitioner filed appeals against these orders on or about July 4, 1963, to the Collector of Customs and Central Excise. The petitioner made a representation on October 3, 1963, requesting that it may not be required to deposit the duty demanded pending appeal. The Collector, by letter, dated January 9, 1964, rejected the representation and requested the petitioner to deposit the duty within 15 days of the receipt of the lett....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (3) The impugned notification applying Section 129 of the Customs Act was good. 4. There is no force in the first point. First, the point was not taken in the High Court. Secondly, it is settled that the existence of a remedy by way of revision does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 226. Moreover, the petitioner had alleged that the Collector had no jurisdiction to demand the deposit or duty pending the appeals as the notification dated May 4, 1963, was bad in so far as it applied Section 129 of the Customs Act. In these circumstances it was not necessary for the petitioner to have filed revisions. 5. There is equally no force in the second point. If the petitioner had not applied for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...." Section 129 of the Customs Act reads thus : "129 (1). Where the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of customs authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, any person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the proper officer the duty demanded or the penalty levied : Provided that where in any particular case the appellate authority is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied will cause undue hardship to the appellant, it may in its discretion dispense with such deposit, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may deem fit. (2) If upon any such appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned by the said authority unless it is satisfied that such amount of tax or penalty or both as the appellant may admit to be due from him, has been paid." It was amended thus : "22.(1) Any dealer aggrieved by an order under this Act, may in the prescribed manner appeal to the prescribed authority against the order : Provided that no appeal against an order of assessment with or without penalty shall be admitted by the said authority unless such appeal is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax, with penalty, if any, in respect of which the appeal has been preferred." 10. S.R. Das J., as he then was, repelled the argument of the learned Advocate that "the requirement as to the deposit of the amount of the as....