Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 6]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Rahul Kapoor And Ors vs Union Of India on 22 April, 2022

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

                            $~21
                            *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                            +    W.P.(C) 6449/2022

                                   RAHUL KAPOOR AND ORS                    ......Petitioners
                                                 Through: Mr Ashutosh, Ms Fatima and Ms
                                                            Monal, Advs.
                                                 versus
                                   UNION OF INDIA                          ......Respondent
                                                 Through: Mr Aditya Singla and Mr Adhishwar
                                                            Suri, Advs.
                                   CORAM:
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                   HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
                                                 ORDER

% 22.04.2022 [Physical court hearing/ hybrid hearing (as per request)]

1. The petitioners aver that their appeals, which have been lodged before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal"), cannot progress further, as the pre-condition of making a deposit of 7.5% of the amount levied as penalty, is difficult to comply with. 1.1. According to the petitioners, the pre-deposit condition prescribed in Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, if applied, would require them to deposit a cumulative amount of Rs.1,42,50,000/-.

2. Mr Ashutosh, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that respondents have confiscated gold, albeit erroneously, worth Rs.10,75,85,241/- and Indian currency amounting to Rs.3,14,38,000/-.

W.P.(C) 6449/2022 page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:28.04.2022 16:13:41

3. It is stated by Mr Ashutosh, except for one piece of gold weighing 50 grams, none of the other pieces of gold that were recovered are of foreign origin.

3.1. Furthermore, it is the petitioners‟ claim that they are jewellers and the gold which has been seized, was purchased from the local market.

4. In support of the petitioners‟ case, Mr Ashutosh has relied upon the orders passed by the coordinate benches of this Court, which are, appended on pages 204 to 208 of the case file. [See Annexure-C (Colly).] 4.1. Mr Aditya Singla, who appears on behalf of the respondents, says that he will ascertain, as to whether the orders on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners, were challenged before the Supreme Court.

5. We may also indicate that Mr Singla has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court dated 28.02.2022, passed in Civil Appeal No.1566/2022, titled Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India & Anr. in support of his case.

6. Mr Ashutosh says that he will file an affidavit on behalf of the petitioners to demonstrate, as to what their present financial condition is. 6.1. Let the said affidavit be filed, within the next two weeks.

7. List the matter on 18.07.2022.





                                                                                  RAJIV SHAKDHER, J




                                                                                POONAM A. BAMBA, J
                            APRIL 22, 2022/p
                                                             Click here to check corrigendum, if any
                            W.P.(C) 6449/2022                                                    page 2 of 2


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VIPIN
KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:28.04.2022
16:13:41