Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M.SINGH, SHAIL JAIN
Tecmax Electronics – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 7th January, 2025 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter “CESTAT”) by which the appeal of the Appellant has been rejected on the ground that the pre-deposit has not been made by the Appellant.
Factual Background
3. The brief facts of the case are that during the relevant period between 2017 and 2018 the Petitioner had filed seven Bills of Entry for import of LED TVs and three Bills of Entry for import of brass ceramic cartridges. It is stated that the said Bills of Entry were assessed and cleared by the Customs Department. However, in respect of another Bill of Entry 3rd May, 2018 importing LED TV, the Petitioner is stated to have inadvertently classified the same as spare parts. The same were reassessed and pursuant to the same investigation was conducted on the ground of under-valuation and underdeclaration of the imported goods.
4. In respect of the said investigation a Show Cause Notice dated 4th October, 2022 was issued to the Petitioner and pursuant
The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act is mandatory, with limited discretion for waiver in exceptional circumstances, reaffirmed by recent judicial precedents.
Pre-deposit in appeals can be validated even if made under a different head when procedural defects arise due to administrative issues.
The court upheld the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, emphasizing that financial hardship does not justify waiver of this requirement.
The amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not permit waiving the pre-deposit requirement based on prior provisions.
The power of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to waive the pre-deposit condition under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 is preserved and can be invoked in rare and deserving ca....
The CESTAT exceeded its jurisdiction by restoring appeals without compliance with mandatory pre-deposit requirements under the Central Excise Act.
The court ruled that interest is payable on delayed refund of pre-deposit after three months from the application date, as pre-deposits do not equate to duty or penalty payments.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
