CHAMUNDY INTERNATIONAL Vs. CESTAT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the dispute involved in both the Writ Petitions are common, they were head together and disposed of by this common order. Both the petitioners are exporting Brass Art Wares to various countries and they were granted with advance licences by the Director General of Foreign Trade under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC). This scheme is to help the exporter. However, this scheme contain various conditions, which the exporter has to fulfill. It appears that the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions contained in the advance licence, which resulted in the issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioners claiming customs duty and penalty. After considering the petitioners' reply, the Commissioner of Customs by order dated 27 -3 -2002 adjudicated the case and demanded a sum of Rs. 56,49,122/ - towards duty and a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/ - towards fine from the petitioner in W.P. 15106/07 and a sum of Rs. 42,71,581/ - towards duty and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ - towards fine from the petitioner in W.P. No. 15103/2007 towards duty and also a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ - from each petitioner towards penalty. Aggrieved by the said Order -in -Original, the petitioners have preferred appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). They have also sought for stay of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions of the appellants as well as the Department, while granting stay, by the impugned order directed the petitioners to pre -deposit a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/ - and Rs. 28,00,000/ - respectively under Section 129B of the Customs Act within three months and to report compliance on 27 -12 -2005. Since the petitioners failed to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time, the appeals filed by them were dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 27 -12 -2005. Challenging the said order, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents -Department and perused the materials available on record and also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.