1990 (11) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ras (second respondent herein). He also sought dispensation with the requirement of the prior deposit of the penalty imposed because under the provisions of these enactments deposit of the penalty imposed by the Original Authority is a condition for the entertainment of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner in support of his prayer for dispensation of the pre-deposit stated that he was a man without any means and therefore was not in a position to deposit such a huge amount of Rs. 75,000/- under one enactment and Rs. 50,000/- under other enactment. This was rejected by the Tribunal by observing that the petitioner has not established that he was not possessed of any property. The Tribunal also observed that the petitioner was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1 and 3. The learned Counsel pointed out that if funds were available with the petitioner respondents 1 and 3 would not have hesitated to proceed to recover the penalties in the absence of any inerim order. 5. The validity of Section 129E of the Customs Act came in before the Supreme Court in Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs (A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2010). The Supreme Court pointed out that the right of appeal given to a party is conditioned upon his fulfilling the requirement of the deposit and such a condition cannot be held to be invalid. However, Supreme Court pointed out that the rejection of the application for dispensation of the pre-deposit will have to be judicially considered by the Tribunal by applying the relevant fac....