Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2015) 05 CESTAT CK 0006

M/s APIS India Limited vs CC (Appeals), ICD, Tughlakabad

Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 13 May 2015

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Raghuram, J · R. K. Singh, Technical Member
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 142 Of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 311 words
1.

The appellant is the assessee, aggrieved by the order-in-appeal dated 04.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi

whereby its appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit ordered by that Authority on 09.11.2009 as a condition for hearing the appeal.

2.

The appellant herein imported raw honey without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 32/97-Cus dated 01.04.1997. The Notification

enjoins a condition, that for availment of benefits therein the goods should have been supplied free of cost by the foreign supplier. Admittedly, the

appellant received the goods on payment of commercial consideration remitted to the foreign supplier, in foreign exchange.

3.

In the circumstances, a show cause notice was issued and after due process the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (BOND), ICD Tughlakabad,

New Delhi by the order dated 25.06.2009 confirmed Customs Duty demand for Rs.1,14,66,076/- alongwith interest, for violation of the condition of

Notification No. 32/97-Cus; directed appropriation of Rs.5 lakhs deposited on 20.05.2009 as partial payment of the duty liability assessed alongwith

interest.

3.

Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal. The application for waiver of pre-deposit was scheduled for hearing on three dates whereat there

was no appearance. Therefore, an interim order dated 09.11.2009 was passed directing pre-deposit of Rs.1 crore within thirty days. Eventually, the

appeal was heard and by the order impugned, the learned appellate Commissioner dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the interim pre-deposit

order, dated on 09.11.2009.

4.

In the circumstances, we are not required to go into the substantive merits of the impugned lower appellate order and into the question whether the

confirmed demand of duty was valid in the circumstances. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) impugned herein, dismissing the appeal

for failure of pre-deposit ordered, in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 is impeccable and warrants no appellate interference. Appeal is

dismissed. No costs.