The High Court dismissed Customs Appeals No.93 and 94 of 2014. The Tribunal had dismissed an earlier appeal for non-compliance with an order requiring a 50% penalty deposit within eight weeks, after the appellant failed to appear when listed post-deadline. The Court found no legal question arose.
Customs Appeals No.93 and 94 of 2014 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CUAPP93-23.3
1/1
PNP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.93 OF 2014 WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.94 OF 2014
Benudhar Samal
versus Union of India and another
..Appellant.
..Respondents.
Mr. V.B. Singh for the Appellant. Mr. S.P. Bharti for the Respondents.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
23rd March, 2015.
P.C. :
The Appeal challenges the order passed by the Tribunal thereby dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with an order of deposit of 50% of the penalty imposed. Perusal of the record would reveal that vide order dated 1st October 2013, eight weeks period was granted to the Appellant assessee for depositing 50% of the penalty imposed. However, when the matter was listed after the said period, neither the Appellant nor the Appellant's representative remained present. As such, the matter came to be dismissed. We do not find that any question of law arises for consideration. Both the Appeals are dismissed.
(A.S. Gadkari, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Customs Appeals stand dismissed due to non-compliance with the order of deposit of 50% of penalty by the appellant's absence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Benudhar Samal
Union of India
B.R. GAVal
A.S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
