AMBIKA NAHAR EXPORTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated July 14, 2006 passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, in Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2006 thereby directing the present appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.20 lakh in terms of section 129E of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as condition precedent for hearing an appeal preferred under section 129A of the Act before the Tribunal.

(2.) Mr. Basu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the customs authority has taken a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the present appeal under section 130 of the Act on the ground that an order in terms of section 129E of the same is not appealable under section 130 thereof. According to Mr. Basu, only the final order passed in terms of section 129B(1) of the Act can be challenged by way of an appeal under section 130 of the Act. In support of such contention, Mr. Basu relies upon the following decisions passed by different Courts while construing similar provisions contained in different statutes like those mentioned in sections 129A and 130 of the Act: 1]. State of Maharashtra vs. Marwanjee P. Desai & Ors., reported in AIR 2002 SC 456; 2]. Punjab Paint, Colour and Varnish Works & Anr. vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Anr., reported in 1987 (32) ELT 656 (All.); 3]. Indotex Machinary Works vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Anr., reported in 1987(28) ELT 265 (Mad.); 4]. Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (96) ELT 521 (Del.); 5]. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr., reported in 1994(206) ITR 126 (A.P.); 6]. Munnal Lal & Sons vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., reported in 1965 (LV) ITR 508; 7]. Sham Wallace & Co. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors., reported in 1999 (240) ITR 579; 8]. Tata Cummins Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), CUSTA 1 of 2002 disposed of on March 2, 2006.

(3.) Mr. Chowdhury, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has, however, seriously disputed the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by Mr. Basu and has contended that all the orders passed by the Tribunal in terms of section 129A of the Act are appealable as would appear from the clear language employed in section 130 of the same. Mr. Chowdhury, therefore, prays for entertaining the appeal and passing an order staying operation of the order impugned herein after overruling the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Basu.