Allowed

Iqbal Mohan Amritlal Mehtra v. the Commissioner of Customs (Adj)

Bombay HC21 Aug 2012CUAPP/35/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed the Customs Tribunal's order mandating a pre-deposit of Rs. 3 lacs for entertaining an appeal. The order set aside the requirement and remanded the matter for hearing on merits without insisting on the deposit, distinguishing the case on the absence of a current demand against the co-conspirator.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's order directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 3 lacs is quashed and set aside. The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on the pre-deposit.

Iqbal Mohan Amritlal Mehtra Vs the Commissioner of Customs… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

cuapp35-11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.35 OF 2011

¶5

Iqbal Mohan Amritlal Mehra ..Appellant.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The Commissioner of Customs (Adj)

¶8

..Respondent.

¶9

Mr. Vikram S. Nankani with Madhur Baya for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. A.S. Rao with J.B. Mishra for the respondent.

¶11

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.D. DHANUKA, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2012

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

Whether the CESTAT was justified in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.3 lacs for entertaining the appeal against the order in original dated 13^th May, 2009, is the question raised in this appeal.

¶15

The appeal is admitted on the above question of law and

¶16

taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties.

1/3

sas

cuapp35-11

In the present case, a show cause notice was issued on 17^th April, 2002 wherein it was alleged that the appellant with Mr. Kiran Vora had aided and abetted with an exporter in over-invoicing the export products and thereby obtain higher drawback than what was permissible in law. By an order in original dated 13^th May, 2009, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings against Mr. Kiran Vora but imposed penalty of Rs.15 lacs upon the appellant. Challenging the aforesaid order, the appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT. By the impugned order dated 16^th May, 2011, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal against the order in original dated 13^th May, 2009.

¶21

The grievance of the appellant is that once the proceedings against the alleged co-conspirator Mr. Kiran Vora was dropped, the adjudicating authority ought to have dropped the proceedings against the appellant as well. In any event, it is contended that in a similar case, namely, in the case of M/s. Radheshyam Exports, where also the proceedings against Mr. Kiran Vora was dropped and penalty of Rs.15 lakhs was imposed upon the appellant, the Tribunal has granted unconditional leave to the appellant and, therefore, even in the present case, unconditional leave ought to

2/3

sas

cuapp35-11

have been granted to the appellant.

¶26

The Tribunal has declined to follow its earlier order passed in the case of the appellant solely on the ground that the exporter, namely M/s. Radheshyam Exports had already deposited substantial amount of drawback which was availed by over-invoicing the export goods. In our opinion, the fact that the exporter has deposited the drawback wrongfully availed by them would not in any way make the present case different from the earlier case. Similarly, though revenue has filed an appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority in dropping the proceedings against Mr. Kiran Vora, the fact remains that as on date there is no demand against co-conspirator.

¶27

For the aforesaid reasons, the decision of the Tribunal in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.3 lakhs is quashed and set aside and the Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal of the appellant on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

¶28

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.

¶29

3/3

¶30

sas

Iqbal Mohan Amritlal Mehtra v. the Commissioner of Customs (Adj)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal Mohan Amritlal Mehtra v. the Commissioner of Customs (Adj)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Central Excise Thane -Ii Vs M/S. Pharma Link Laboratories

Iqbal Mohan Amritlal Mehra Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Adj)

M/s. L'Oreal India Private Limited Vs Union of India and Anr.