TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) [the Commissioner (Appeals)] dismissing the appeal for the sole reason that the statutory requirement of pre-deposit was not satisfied. 2. Customs Appeal No. 51002 of 2015 has been filed by Jagjeet Singh to assail the same order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. It needs to be noted that both the appeals, namely the appeal filed by the appellant and the appeal filed by Jagjeet Singh, were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and they were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order dated 31.12.2014. 4. The appellant was appointed as a super distributor by M/s. Panasonic Asia Pacific Limited. The appellant impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned order dated 31.12.2014 does acknowledge the filing of the modification applications, but the order reveals that no order has been passed on the applications. In this connection, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and it is as follows: "4) Submission of the appellants: In the light of above order in Appeal, and Modification application dated 21.7.2014, a personal hearing was fixed for 26.7.2014 and 8.9.2014. Sh Rajat Doshi, advocate, on behalf of the appellants appeared on 8.9.2014 but failed to produce the receipts of the pre-deposit made as required under Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962. 5) Discussion and findings:- I ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the pre-deposit, but the appeals could not have been dismissed merely for the reason that pre-deposit had not been made without granting any opportunity to the appellant and Jagjeet Singh to make the pre-deposit. 9. Learned counsel also submitted that instead of remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the modification applications, the Tribunal itself should decide the modification applications in the light of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in the matter of a similar distributor. 10. Shri Nagendra Yadav, learned authorized representative appearing for the department has, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that even if the modification applications were pending and no order had been passed, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the order of the Tribunal requiring the distributor to make pre-deposit of 50% of the total demand which order was modified by the High Court on 16.04.2014 by requiring the distributor to make deposit of 20% of the amount of duty as a pre-condition for filing the appeal. 16. The operative part of the order dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Delhi High Court is reproduced below: "1. The substantial question of law urged by the appellant/assessee is whether the majority opinion of the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as? CESTAT?) requiring pre-deposit of 50% duty is justified in the circumstances of the case. xxx xxx xxx 3. This Court has considered the submissions. It is evident from the materials on record that there appears to be a c....