Madras High Court
N.Kader Mohideen vs The Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... on 20 November, 2018
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.11.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD).No.9907 of 2016
N.Kader Mohideen ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise,
(Appeals-II),
1-Williams Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise,
1-Williams Road,
Cantonment,
Tiruchirapalli – 620 001.
3. The Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs,
(Appeals-II),
1-Williams Road,
Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned
order-in-appeal No.TCP-CUS-000-APP-019-16 dated
09.02.2016 in Appeal No.C24/109/2015-TRU(CUS) on the file
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
of the first respondent learned Commissioner of Customs and
Central Excise(Appeals-II), Tiruchirappalli and quash the same
and be pleased to direct the first respondent learned
Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise(Appeals-II),
Tiruchirappalli, to restore the Appeal No.C24/109/2015-
TRU(CUS) filed by the petitioner for disposal.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Renganathan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Nandakumar
***
ORDER
The officials attached to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Coimbatore Regional Unit intercepted the petitioner herein, namely, Kader Mohideen and one Ibrahim who came together in two separate motorcycles on 28.10.2013. 21 pieces of gold bars were seized from them. An order dated 03.09.2015 was passed by the second respondent herein confiscating the seized gold as well as the two two wheelers. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was imposed as a penalty on the petitioner also. Redemption fine of Rs.10,000/- was also http://www.judis.nic.in 3 levied. Questioning the imposition of penalty and redemption fine, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the first respondent. The statutory appeal ought to have been accompanied by the deposit of 7.5% of the demand or penalty imposed. This is the mandate set out in Section 129(E) of THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962. The petitioner did not comply with the said requirement. Therefore, the appeal was not taken on file. There was a correspondence in this regard between the petitioner and the Department. Since the petitioner even after grant of an opportunity did not comply with the aforesaid requirement, the appeal came to be dismissed as not entertained by the order dated 09.02.2016. The same is questioned in this Writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision reported in 2015 (321) E.L.T. 397(Bom.)(HOTEL SAI SIDDHI PVT. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., NASHIK).
4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision and taking note of the justification set out in the affidavit filed in the support of this petition, the order impugned in this Writ petition is set aside. This is because, the petitioner had already remitted the amount in question on 07.03.2016. The first respondent is directed to number the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and after following the due procedure, dispose of the same in accordance with law.
5. The Writ petition stands allowed, accordingly. No costs.
20.11.2018 Index : yes/No Internet:Yes/No pmu http://www.judis.nic.in 5 To
1. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, (Appeals-II), 1-Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, 1-Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli – 620 001.
3. The Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs, (Appeals-II), 1-Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
pmu W.P.(MD).No.9907 of 2016 20.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in 7 http://www.judis.nic.in