2025 (8) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the appellant on his failure to deposit 7.5% of penalty as a condition precedent to prefer the appeal. 2. Heard Sri. K. Chandrashekara, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Madhu N. Rao, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the entire appeal papers. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that a search was conducted on 23.10.2012 and in-pursuance of the search, show-cause notice dated 09.04.2013 was issued. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority passed order on 31.01.2014 confiscating the goods and also imposing penalty, against which, the appellant is said to have filed an appeal before the CESTAT. 4. The said appeal was filed on 07.08.2014 and in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short '1962 A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed by the appellant. Therefore, he submits that the law as on the date of exercise of right to appeal would apply to the appellant and as such, the appellant was required to make pre-deposit in-terms of amended Section 129E of 1962 Act. 8. Learned counsel Sri. Madhu N. Rao also places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1566/2022, decided on 28.02.2022, wherein the amended provision of Section 129E was considered and similar contention was rejected. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 9. The above appeal was admitted for hearing to consider the following substantial questions of law; "(a) Whether the Tribunal was right in Law to have directed pre-deposit of 7.5% or 10% a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as it stood, prior to the substitution there was a power available with the appellate authority in the matter of demand of pre- deposit. He would point out that the amount for pre-deposit in his case is harsh and onerous. 6. On a conspectus of the provisions of Section 129-E before and after the substitution, it becomes clear that the lawgiver has intended to bring about a sweeping change from the previous regime and usher in a new era, under which the amount to be deposited was scaled down and pegged at a certain percentage of the amount in dispute. In other words, while under Section 129-E, as it stood prior to the substitution, the appellant was to deposit the duty and the interest demanded or the penalty levied, in the present regim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... amount which can be demanded by way of pre-deposit. The first proviso provides that the amount required to be deposited should not exceed Rs 10 crores. In this regard, the lawgiver has purported to grant relief to an appellant. The second proviso contemplates that Section 129-E as substituted would not apply to stay applications and appeals which are pending before the appellate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2014. The amended provision, as we have already noticed has come into force from 6-8- 2014. Therefore, in regard to stay applications and appeals which were pending before any appellate authority prior to commencement of the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2014, Section 129-E as substituted would not apply. S....