ADESH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre -deposit, I proceed to dispose of the appeal.

(2.) THE original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - on Sri Adesh Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Ankur Offset and Packaging under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Against this penalty, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed therein an application for waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery. The stay application was disposed of by the appellate authority by ordering pre -deposit of the entire amount of penalty under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The pre -deposit had to be made on or before 25 -3 -2006. Having found no evidence of deposit, the appellate authority dismissed the party's appeal on the ground of non -compliance with Section 129E ibid. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned Consultant for the appellant that, upon receipt of the appellate Commissioner's direction for pre -deposit, the appellant had sent a modification application by speed post to the appellate authority on 23 -3 -2006 and the same was received by the addressee on the next date. It is submitted that it was without considering this application that learned Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the aforesaid ground. It is pointed out that the appellate authority noted in the impugned order that no reply had been received from the appellant as of date to the interim direction for pre -deposit. It is submitted that this observation noted in the impugned order is factually incorrect inasmuch as the modification application which was speed -posted to the appellate Commissioner in response to the direction for pre -deposit had been received by the addressee on 24 -3 -2006, that is, prior to expiry of the period allowed for pre -deposit. I have heard learned SDR also, who has sought to defend the impugned order.