TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re-deposit. 2. Initially, an order in original dated July 14, 2014 was passed against the petitioner (as also his brother and a company named M/s. Beriwala Impex Private Limited). The said order in original was sought to be assailed by filing a writ petition being WP No. 1181 of 2014 before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated September 22, 2016 observing as follows:- "It appears from the narration in the impugned order that, the petitioner had made a voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act before the Custom Authorities. It also appears from such narration that, the show cause notice to the petitioner was issued to the local address of the petitioner as known to the Custom Authorities. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismissed by an order dated December 20, 2019 observing as follows:- "It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant that a huge amount has been levied as penalty and it would not be possible for the writ petitioner to put up the statutory deposit and avail of the statutory remedy. Ordinarily, the requirement of a statutory deposit as a pre-condition to the filing of an appeal is not accepted as a ground not to avail of the regular remedy and approach the writ Court instead. It is elementary that an appeal is a creature of statute and any conditions imposed in the exercise of the right of appeal need necessarily to be complied with to avail of such remedy. In any event, upon this Court enquiring of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han what has been statutorily provided for. Statute requires that the Appellant should deposit 7.5%/10% of the litigated amount when they file their Appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In this case during the last four years the Appellants have not been able to fulfill this condition. Therefore, we dismiss the Appeals at the diary stage itself on this ground." 7. Upon the said appeal being dismissed, the petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 8. It is the petitioner's case that the order in original dated July 14, 2014 had been challenged by the company i.e. M/s. Beriwala Impex Private Limited before CESTAT and that during pendency of the appeal, CESTAT has allowed the said appeal by an order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginal with the amount required to be put in by the petitioner as statutory pre deposit. 12. Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Customs Authorities submits that such a course is simply not permissible in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that once the Hon'ble Division Bench has left the petitioner free to approach CESTAT by way of statutory appeal upon declining the petitioner's prayer for consideration of relaxation of condition of pre deposit, the same prayer cannot be renewed by the petitioner once again. 13. It is further submitted by Ms. Mukherjee that the liabilities of the said company and the petitioner are separate in terms of the order in original and therefore payment of duty by the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....condition of pre deposit and such failure led to the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. That, in the considered view of the Court, cannot clothe the petitioner with any fresh right to approach the Writ Court and seek relaxation of condition of pre deposit in whatever manner. 16. Furthermore, it is not the petitioner's case that the company paid the duty subsequent to the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and that being so, there is no change in circumstances also. The party continues to be at the same place and in the same position where the party was at the time when the Hon'ble Division Bench decided the petitioner's appeal. Above all, there is no provision in the statute that permits any appropriation or adjustment of paym....