SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 1198

2007(6) Supreme 368
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
(From Gujarat High Court)
Bhavya Apparels Private Limited & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 4340 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7225 of 2007]
Decided on : 18-09-2007

important point
Section 129E of the Act would be attracted where the goods in question are not in the custody of the Revenue.

Headnote:(a)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – A right of appeal is not a fundamental right, it is a statutory right – Therefore, it may also be hedged by conditions – It is also trite that the conditions may not be such which may for all intent and purport take away the vested right of appeal. (Para 9)

       (1988) 4 SCC 402; 2007 (5) SCALE 452 – Relied upon.

       (b)Customs Act, 1962 – Section 129E – Section 129E of the Act would be attracted where the goods in question are not in the custody of the Revenue – Same being the case instantly, it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to take that factor into consideration in making the order of pre-deposit and the proviso appended to Section 129E of the Act should have been invoked – The question of undue hardship on the part of the appellants should also have been considered – It would be arbitrary if a suitor is required to deposit such an amount at the initial stage and not at the appellate stage. (Paras 10, 14 and 16)

       (2004) 4 SCC 311 – Relied upon.

       (c)Judicial Review – Merit of the case ordinarily should not otherwise be gone into unless the question on the face of it appears to be concluded. (Para 10)

       (d)Interpretation of statutes – The taxing statute must be strictly construed. (Para 17)

       2007 (3) SCALE 627; 2007 (7) SCALE 392 – Relied upon.

       (e)Words and Phrases – Shall – Only because the word “shall” is used, the same may not be construed to be imperative in character. (Para 17)

       2007 (7) SCALE 758 –Relied upon.

       (f)Customs Act, 1962 – Section 129E – In view of the Tribunal failing to take into consideration the limitation of its jurisdiction under Section 129E which emanates from the custody of the goods, as a part of the goods was in the custody of the Revenue; and in view of the fact that the High Court going into merit of the matter instead of considering the question as to whether direction to deposit the amount would cause undue hardship or not, the impugned judgments set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh. (Para 18)

       Facts of the case:

       An adjudication proceeding was initiated against the appellant. Assessment of Custom Duty was made. An appeal was preferred thereagainst. The said appeal was dismissed for failure to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 3,30,00000/- as directed by the Court of Appeal.

        When a statement was made before the High Court that the Tribunal may hear the appeal on merit without asking the appellant to make any pre-deposit, it was asked to make that prayer before the Tribunal. Pursuant thereto an application was filed. Tribunal asked for deposit of Rs. 3 crores. Writ thereagainst was dismissed by High Court.

       Findings of the Court:

       Tribunal exceeding its jurisdiction and High Court went into merit of the matter instead of considering the question as to whether direction to deposit the amount would cause undue hardship or not.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed. Matter remitted back to Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J.— Leave granted.

2.Interpretation of the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short “the Act”) is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 4.10.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 9569 of 2004.

3.An adjudication proceeding was initiated against the appellant. Assessment of Custom Duty was made. An appeal was preferred thereagainst. The said appeal was dismissed for failure to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 3,30,00000/- as directed by the Court of Appeal.

4.We may notice that in the earlier round of litigation when a statement was made before the High Court that the Tribunal may hear the appeal on merit without asking the appellant to make any pre-deposit, it was asked to make that prayer before the Tribunal. Pursuant thereto an application was filed. The Tribunal in terms of its order dated 14.01.2004 opined:

“We accordingly order that the appellant company deposit Rs. 3 crores out of the total duty demand upon such deposit further deposit of duty and penalty imposed on the company is waived and recovery thereof stayed. We further order that the director of the company Shri R.C. Agarwal deposit Rs. 20 lakhs and the power of attorney holder of the Company Shri H.R. Agarwal deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within 12 weeks of the date of the order. Compliance on 26.4.2004. Appeal is liable to be rejected for non-compliance without further notice.”

5.A writ application filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the said order has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

6.Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in support of this appeal, inter alia would submit:

(i)The High Court committed a manifest error insofar as it failed to take into consideration the ingredients of Section 129E of the Act.

(ii)Section 129E, if construed properly, would not give rise to a conclusion that in absence of any provision made in that behalf, non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit itself would lead to automatic dismissal of the appeal.

(iii)A right of appeal conferred upon a suitor having been provided for in a statute, the provision for pre-deposit must receive strict interpretation.

(iv)Provisions for payment of court fee and power to grant stay having been conferred in the Tribunal, the impugned judgment could not have been passed particularly when Section 129E of the Act does not provide for any consequence arising out of non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit.

7. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Union of India, on the other hand, would submit that interpretation of Section 129E of the Act is concluded by a decision of this Court in Vijay Prakash D. Mehta and Another v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay,1 [(1988) 4 SCC 402].

8. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to customs. It provides for assessing an order of custom duty. It also provides for seizure of goods. Penalty may also be levied by the adjudicating authorities. Chapter XV of the Act provides for appeals to the Commissioner from any decision passed by an officer of custom lower in rank than the said authority. Section 128A provides for the procedure therefor. Section 129 provides for the constitution of the appellate tribunal wherefor procedures have also been laid down. Proviso appended to Section 129A enumerates the cases in respect whereof jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal is barred. Sub-section (6) of Section 129A envisages payment of court fee. Sub-section (2A) of Section 129B specifies a period of three years during which the appeal may be disposed of. A Tribunal is also empowered to grant stay. Section 129E, however, mandates pre-deposit of any duty and interest in appeal which is preferred in respect of the goods which are not under the control of the custom authorities or any penalty levied under the Act. Proviso
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top