ORDER OD – 7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/162/2025 PRAVEEN GOEL VS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH KOLKATA AND ORS BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI Date: 10^th February, 2026.

Appearance:-

Mr. Rishi Raju, Adv.

Ms. Shreya Mundhra, Adv.

…for the petitioner Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, Adv.

…for the respondents The Court:- This writ petition is principally directed against an order dated August 9, 2024 whereby the petitioner’s appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (hereafter “CESTAT”) was dismissed on the ground of not fulfillment of the statutory condition of pre-

deposit.

Initially, an order in original dated July 14, 2014 was passed against the petitioner (as also his brother and a company named M/s. Beriwala Impex Private Limited). The said order in original was sought to be assailed by filing a writ petition being WP No. 20 of 2015 before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated September 22, 2016 observing as follows:-

“The petitioner is the brother of the petitioner of W.P. No. 1181 of 2014. The same adjudicating order of the Custom Authorities as impugned in W.P.

No. 1181 of 2014 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

The petitioner in W.P. No. 1181 of 2014 had claimed himself to be a non- resident Indian stationed at Malaysia. The petitioner herein is the brother of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1181 of 2014. The petitioner is, however, stationed in India. The same impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner here on the ground that no reason has been ascribed as to why a penalty of Rs. 22 crores has been imposed.

The impugned order is appealable.

No ground has been made out to show as to why the petitioner will not avail of the statutory alternative remedy available to it.

In such circumstances, W.P. No. 20 of 2015 is dismissed. No order as to costs.”

The said order was carried in appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench.

The said appeal being APO/307/2016 was dismissed by an order dated December 20, 2019 observing as follows:-

“It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant that a huge amount has been levied as penalty and it would not be possible for the writ petitioner to put up the statutory deposit and avail of the statutory remedy.

Ordinarily, the requirement of a statutory deposit as a pre-condition to the filing of an appeal is not accepted as a ground not to avail of the regular remedy and approach the writ Court instead. It is elementary that an appeal is a creature of statute and any conditions imposed in the exercise of the right of appeal need necessarily to be complied with to avail of such remedy.

In any event, upon this Court enquiring of the appellant as to whether the quantum of penalty imposed could have been legally done, it is submitted that the penalty imposed was illegal. However, it appears that the relevant authority had due jurisdiction to impose the quantum of penalty imposed in this case.

In the light of the aforesaid and since the order impugned herein does not reveal the consideration of any irrelevant material and does not otherwise appear to be perverse, such order cannot be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

APO NO.307 of 2016 with GA No.818 of 2017 are dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.”

After the appellate order dated December 20, 2019, being passed, the petitioner approached CESTAT by filing an appeal under Diary No.

75083/2020.

However, the petitioner did not put in the required statutory pre-deposit.

Since the requisite statutory pre-deposit was not put in by the petitioner, CESTAT did not entertain the appeal and ultimately, by an order dated August

9, 2024, CESTAT dismissed the appeal observing as follows:-

“These Appeals pertained to the year 2020. The Appellants have not fulfilled their pre-deposit condition.

2. The Ld.Advocate submits that the penalties imposed on these Appellants i