Allowed

M/S Parasrampuria Industries Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Bombay HC2 Jul 2012CUAPP/73/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay allowed appeals against the CESTAT's order directing appellants to make pre deposit of duties/penalties for 37 advance licenses where documents proving export obligations were subsequently produced. The pre deposit order was quashed and matter restored to CESTAT.

What did the court decide?

Pre deposit order quashed and set aside; matter restored to CESTAT for fresh consideration; appeals disposed of.

M/S Parasrampuria Industries Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

20-120cuapp-l-c=.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

CUSTOMS APPEAL (L) NO. 20 OF 2012

¶4

Sanjay Parasrampuria .. Appellant

¶5

v/s.

¶6

The Commissioner of Customs (Export) ..Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

CUSTOMS APPEAL (L) NO. 21 OF 2012

¶9

M/s. Parasrampuria Industires Ltd. .. Appellant v/s. The Commissioner of Customs (Export) ..Respondent

¶10

WITH

¶11

CUSTOMS APPEAL (L) NO. 22 OF 2012

¶12

Omprakash Parasrampuria .. Appellant v/s. The Commissioner of Customs (Export) ..Respondent

¶13

WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL (L) NO. 23 OF 2012

¶14

Ratanlal Parasrampuria .. Appellant v/s. The Commissioner of Customs (Export) ..Respondent

¶15

Mr. Shridharan, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Prakash Shah i/b PDS Legal for the appellant

¶16

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. J.B. Mishra for the respondent

¶17

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 2^nd JULY, 2012.

1 of 4

U.S.Jagtap

20-120cuapp-l-c=.sxw

P.C. :

Whether the CESTAT was justified in directing the appellants to make pre deposit of the duties / penalties as the case may be, for entertaining the appeal against order in original passed in the case of each of the appellants is the question raised in these appeals.

¶23

The appellants had obtained 106 advance licenses from time to time with an obligation to fulfill the export obligation by importing duty free raw materials under those licenses. As the appellants failed to furnish documents to show that the export obligation has been fulfilled, the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand in respect of imports made under the 106 advance licenses.

¶24

Challenging the aforesaid orders, the appellants filed appeals before the CESTAT. Before the CESTAT, the appellants could produce documents to show fulfillment of export obligation in respect of 69 advance licenses. However, the appellants could not produce documents relating to the remaining 37 advance licenses. As a result, the Tribunal directed the appellants to make the pre deposit of duties / penalty. Thereafter,

2 of 4

U.S.Jagtap

20-120cuapp-l-c=.sxw

Miscellaneous Applications were filed by the appellants stating that subsequent to the order of predeposit, the appellants could retrieve from their files which would establish that exports had been effected under the 37 advance licenses. As these documents were not furnished earlier, the appellants sought recalling of the predeposit order. The Tribunal declined to entertain the Miscellaneous Applications. Hence, these appeals are filed.

¶29

Although the appellants had failed to produce documents to establish that exports under the 37 advance licenses have been effected, before the Tribunal passing the predeposit order, in view of the fact that the appellants have subsequently produced documents to show that the exports have been effected and it is claimed that the exports effected are more than the export obligation required to be fulfilled as against the imports under the said 37 advance licenses, in our opinion it would be just and proper to set aside the predeposit order and direct the Tribunal to pass fresh order in that behalf.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned order of pre deposit passed in all these

¶31

appeals are quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of

3 of 4

U.S.Jagtap

20-120cuapp-l-c=.sxw

CESTAT for fresh consideration in accordance with law. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. All the contentions

¶36

of both the parties are kept open.

¶37

[R.Y.GANOO, J.] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]

¶38

4 of 4

¶39

U.S.Jagtap

M/S Parasrampuria Industries Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Parasrampuria Industries Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax Vat -Iii Mumbai Vs M/S. Sanjivani (T) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

The Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax Vat -Iii Mumbai Vs M/S. Sanjivani (T) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

The Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax Vat -Iii Mumbai Vs M/S. Sanjivani (T) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Sanjay Parasrampuria Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Omprakash Parasrampuria, Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Vamatex India Ltd./, Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - I