Customs Act, 1962: s. 129E – Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal – Appellant intercepted with smuggled gold - Imposition of penalty of Rs.75 lakhs – Challenged to, by the appellant – Appeals dismissed by the tribunal since the requirement of the pre-deposit of the amount u/s. 129E not complied with – High Court upheld the order – Appellant’s case that since the incident took place in 2013, he must be governed by s. 129E prior to the substitution wherein there was a power available with the appellate body in the matter of demand of pre-deposit – On appeal, held: Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision – On facts, substitution has effected a repeal and it has re-enacted the provision as it is contained in s. 129E – Order passed by the Commissioner is of 2015, after the substitution of s. 129E and the appellant filed the appeal in 2017 – Appellant is called upon to pay the amount in terms of s. 129E after the substitution, a far lesser amount in terms of the fixed percentage as provided in s. 129E before the substitution – However, the appellant, wishes to have the benefit of the proviso which, in fact, appropriately would apply only to a case where the appellant is called upon to pay the full amount u/s. 129E under the earlier avtar – Legislative intention would clearly be to not to allow the appellant to avail the benefit of the discretionary power available under the proviso to the substituted provision u/s. 129E – Thus, the appellant’s case cannot be accepted, however, in the interest of justice, appellant given two months time to comply with the requirement of s. 129E of the Act.
Benara Valves Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Central Excise and another (2006) 13 SCC 347 : [2006]
9 Suppl. SCR 341 – referred to.
Principles on Statutory Interpretation (12th Edition) page No. 676 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.