TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D') (Tughlakhabad) (hereinafter, 'SCN'). The allegations on the basis of intelligence from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter, 'DRI'), Delhi Zonal Unit (hereinafter, 'DZU') was that three entities, were alleged to be indulging in evasion of Customs Duty, by undervaluing the imports of sanitary and bathroom fittings. The three entities are as follows: i. M/s Gravity Bath Pvt. Ltd. with its Directors-Anoop Kumar Garg, Rahul Agarwal and Father-Suresh Chandra Agarwal. ii. M/s Vinayak Traders, a sole proprietary concern of Anoop Kumar Garg. iii. M/s Aditya Industries, proprietor firm of Rahul Agarwal. 4. Pursuant to the said intelligence which was received, searches were conducted at various premises of the aforesaid firms, as also at the residences of the partners/proprietors. 5. During the course of the search Rs. 34,00,000/- cash was also seized by the DRI Officials and Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was also deposited by the Petitioners under protest. 6. Thereafter, the SCN was issued to the Petitioners, as to why action ought not to be taken in respect of the said undervaluation. Pursuant to which, replies were filed by the Petitioners as al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 Challan No. 000286 Suresh Chand 6,41,890.00 2,88,110.00 TR-6 Challan No. 000287 TR-6 Challan No. 000815 Aditya Industries 16,07,113.00 TR-6 Challan No. 000931 Vinayak Traders 28,12,943.00 TR-6 Challan No. 000932 Total 2,58,15,431 11. According to the ld. Counsel for the Petitioners, a total amount of Rs. 2.58 Crores has already been deposited by the Petitioners with the Customs Department. In addition, a sum of Rs. 34,00,000/-, which was recovered in cash by the Customs Department, has also been retained by the Customs Department. Thus, the amount required for pre-deposit is already fully satisfied by the Petitioners. 12. On the other hand, Ms. Anushree Narain, ld. SSC, on behalf of the Respondent has sought instructions from the Assistant Commissioner (Legal), ICD, Tughlakabad, and submits that the sum of Rs. 34,00,000/-, which was confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, 'the Act'), was as sales proceeds of smuggled goods. Thus, the same cannot be adjusted towards a pre-deposit. It is further submitted that Section 129E of the Act requires a specific deposit to be made. 13. The Court has considered the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....While analysing the rival submissions, it is necessary to note, at the outset, that, under the provisions of Section 26(6-A), the aggregate of the amounts stipulated in the sub-clauses of the provision has to be deposited and proof of payment is required to be produced together with the filing of the appeal. Both clauses (b) and (c) employ the expression "an amount equal to ten per cent of the amount of tax disputed by the appellant". The entirety of the undisputed amount has to be deposited and 10% of the disputed amount of tax is required to be deposited by the appellant. In the present case, the appellant disputes the entirety of the tax demand. Consequently, on the plain language of the statute, 10% of the entire disputed tax liability would have to be deposited in pursuance of Section 26(6-A). The amount which has been deposited by the appellant anterior to the order of assessment cannot be excluded from consideration, in the absence of statutory language to that effect. A taxing statute must be construed strictly and literally. There is no room for intendment. If the legislature intended that the protest payment should not be set off as the deposit amount, then a provision wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the second appeal, no pre-deposit shall be paid on the grounds of duplication. (ii) For the purpose of pre-deposit, the amount that is lying with the GST Department, which was deposited by the Petitioner during the course of investigation, can be adjusted in respect of the pre-deposit. (iii) In view of the above, the Petitioner may file both the appeals by 15th July, 2025 seeking adjustment as directed above. The appeals, if filed by 15th July, 2025 in terms of this order, shall not be dismissed as being barred by limitation. If online filing is proving difficult due to adjustment, which the Court has granted today, the Petitioner is permitted to file the appeal physically." 19. In the present case, the provision that is relevant is Section 129Eof the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as under: "[129E. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal.-- The Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal,-- (i) under sub-section (1) of section 128, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are ....