Budget 2024 Updates

India successfully tests two ballistic missilesKhalistani activists polluting Canada: Canadian MP Chandra AryaUK Foreign Minister David Lammy meets PM ModiRs 1.72 lakh crore allocated for capital acquisition for defenceI-T- Re-assessment - additions quashed as assessee given fresh opportunity to adduce evidence; nevertheless, assessee failed to participate in hearing despite multiple notices - costs of Rs 40000/- imposed on assessee: HCVaishnaw hails Rs 2.62 lakh crore capex for RailwaysCX - Final product is copper cathodes and not sulphuric acid, which is a by-product - Oxygen gas captively consumed in manufacture of sulphuric acid is entitled to exemption in terms of notification 67/95-CE: HCElectric Mobility Promotion Scheme, 2024 notified to promote green mobilityGST - Same input and output supplies though attracting different tax rates at different points of time - Since para 3.2 of Circular 135 has been struck down as ultra vires, refund to be extended: HCBIS sanctions 82 projects to faculty members of various prominent institutionsGST - Demand confirmed since petitioner failed to file a reply - Petitioner can be given one opportunity to explain subject to they depositing 25% of disputed tax from its Electronic Cash register: HCBihar passes bill to curb paper leaks with Rs one crore fine & 10-yr jailGST - Petitioner's assertion that the ITC available in GSTR-2A exceeds that availed of in GSTR-3B was not considered - Matter remanded; bank attachment lifted: HC380-feet asteroid to fly past earth at 29K Kmph tomorrow: NASAGST - Legitimate trade and commerce by every supplier should be allowed to be carried on subject to payment of tax and statutory compliance - Registration to be revived: HCPax plane crashes with 23 onboard at Kathmandu airport; 18 killedGST - Petitioner unaware of SCNs and the orders passed - Subject to petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax, matter remanded: HCINDIA bloc boycotts Parliament; says Budget is discriminatoryTaxonomy is not about taxesBudget for Vikasit BharatWill the Old Tax Regime be Consigned to A Margadarshak Role?July 21 (Sunday) was hottest day on earth since Ice Age: Scientists
 
Cus - S.129E did not defeat or render vested right of appeal illusory - condition of pre-deposit is a reasonable condition: HC

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 28, 2017: THE Petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Section 129E of the Customs Act,1962 as amended by the Finance Act, 2014 [w.e.f 06.08.2014] prescribing a mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeal. They also challenge the o-in-o on the ground that the order is illegal, being passed without considering the submissions of the petitioners.

In assailing the legality of Section 129E of the Act, the contention interalia urged on behalf of the Petitioners is that the provision is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The next contention is that Section 129E as amended has taken away the powers earlier conferred on the appellate authority to waive the pre-deposit, upon forming an opinion that a pre-deposit would cause undue hardship. [Mardia Chemicals Ltd. = 2004-TIOL-32-SC-SECURITISATION relied upon]

Revenue in its reply affidavit contended that the challenge as raised is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Nimbus Communications Ltd. = 2016-TIOL-1708-HC-MUM-ST and followed in other cases.

It is submitted by the counsel for the Revenue that the substituted section has been introduced as a measure to facilitate trade, business and industry by speedy resolution of disputes before various appellate forums; that even pre-deposit of disputed amount of duty or penalty for the longer period by the appellants is no more required after imposition of substituted Section 129E of the Act; that assessees are no more required to deposit the entire disputed amount to prevent the recovery officer from resorting to any coercive measure for recovery of dues; that waiver of pre-deposit under the pre-amended Section of 129E of the Act was not as a matter of right of the Appellants and the Appellate authority after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case could grant a waiver in appropriate cases; that under the present disposition after the amendment, the assessee gets immunity from any coercive action for recovery of dues, in case, the appeal is pending before any appellate authority under Section 129 of the Act and pre-deposit as mandated has been made.

After extracting the referred provisions, the High Court observed thus -

++ The contention of the petitioner that the provision is rendered discriminatory as it creates two different classes when it mandates pre-deposit of duty demanded or penalty imposed or both, and more particularly when penalty cannot be considered to be a revenue as it is not a tax requiring it to be safeguarded, also cannot be accepted. It may be pointed out that even the pre-amended provision stipulated for a deposit in case of appeals from orders levying penalty. [ Vijay Prakash D.Mehta and JawaharD.Mehta = 2002-TIOL-427-SC-CUS - right to appeal is a statutory right and not an absolute right, which can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant.]

++ By virtue of Section 129E, the right to appeal as conferred under the said provision is a conditional right, the legislature in its wisdom has imposed a condition of deposit of a percentage of duty demanded or penalty levied or both. The fiscal legislation as in question can very well stipulate as a requirement of law of a mandatory pre-deposit as a condition precedent for an appeal to be entertained by the appellate authority. In view of the above settled position in law, Section 129E of the Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground as assailed by the petitioner.

Relying on the decisions in M/s.Dream Castle = 2016-TIOL-1009-HC-MAD-ST and Ganesh Yadav = 2015-TIOL-1490-HC-ALL-ST - that Section 35F of the CEA did not defeat or render the vested right of appeal illusory and that the condition of pre-deposit is a reasonable condition and such condition did not defeat the vested right of appeal, the High Court held that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the apex court decision of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. was completely misplaced.

Concluding that the Writ Petitions lack merit, the same were dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-1205-HC-MUM-CUS)


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Not printer's devil but printer a devil

You have written "after extracting the referred provisions, the High Court...". What was extracted was the version of Finance Bill and not that of the Finance Act, which rendered the Bench unable to see how two classes are created, ie. saddled with duty or duty & penalty on one side and only penalty on the other side.

The same mistake happened in the Nimbus case also.

The problem crept because of the incorrect version published by Professional Book Publishers who publish under the Trade Name "Professional's". The said publisher gave the version of Finance Bill in the bare act though the same was altered and the Finance Act was passed with modifications in the proposed substitution of Section 129E.

We are in the process of filing a Review Petition in the matter.

Posted by sureshbala sureshbala
 

TIOL Tube Latest

Dr. Shailendra Kumar, Chairman, TIOL Knowledge Foundation, addressing the gathering



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.