RAJESH ATMANAND AGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. Prakash Shah, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant. The only contention raised before us is that similarly situated assessees have been granted complete relief inasmuch as their request to proceed with the appeal unconditionally has been granted. The appellant -assessee is the only assessee on whom a condition of pre -deposit has been imposed and that too of the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/ -. He is an individual and would find it difficult to comply with such a condition and when others have not been imposed the same. The rule of consistency, therefore, demands that similar order should have been passed and in case of those who are similarly situated.

(2.) WE are unable to agree with Shri Shah. Merely because an interim order has been passed and granting unconditional waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery to one assessee does not mean that the others similarly situated can claim this relief as a matter of right. We have clarified in several orders passed by us that the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Wardha Coal Transport Private Limited - : 2009 (13) S.T.R. 490 and the other orders relied upon cannot be construed as granting a legal right to approach the Higher Court on denial of interim relief raising this ground. We have referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. reported in : AIR 1986 SC 662 : 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.) and the attention of the Division Bench in M/s. Wardha Coal Transport Private Limited was not invited to this Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, there is no such rule and particularly as claimed. There may be some practice of passing consistent orders and that is what the Supreme Court brings to the notice of the authorities. However, by that itself and without anything more, we do not think that the appeal raises any substantial question of law. The order passed by the majority in this case is imminently fair and the reasons assigned for the same from the majority judgment do not raise any substantial question of law. The, findings are purely tentative and on facts. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. At the request of Mr. Shah, the assessee is granted six weeks time to comply with the condition.