Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Shiva Prasad Chennuri – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
P.Sam Koshy, J.
Heard Mr. Kongala Mohan Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CBIC for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the requirement of deposit of 7.5% of the duty imposed on the penalty amount as a pre-condition for filing of an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’).
3. In the instant case, on 21.03.2024, the petitioner was said to be found carrying two gold bars in his pocket weighing 233.200 gms, the value of which was Rs.15,50,780/- while travelling from Dubai to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad. The petitioner was subjected to proceedings in accordance with the Customs Act and an order in original was passed on 10.12.2024 whereby an order of confiscation was ordered and also an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Act was imposed as penalty upon the petitioner.
4. Against the order in original dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Act. However, it appears because of the pre-co
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.
Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act is applicable and cannot be waived based on the petitioner's financial condition.
Petitioner entitled to refund of pre-deposit, emphasizing procedural compliance in appeals under the Customs Act.
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 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.
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
