Case Details: Samrah Gold Factory ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (2026) 43 Centax 129 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Sunita Agarwal & Vipin Chandra Dixit, JJ.
- S/Shri Sandeep Srivastava, Arvind Srivastava, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Amit Mahajan, Dhananjay Awasthi, Gaurav Mahajan, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellants, comprising foreign exporter companies and a Director, sent consignments to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units at NOIDA for refurbishing/remaking and return. Pursuant to search and seizure, the Commissioner passed an Order-in-Original confirming customs duty and imposing penalties. The appellants filed appeals before the CESTAT after the amendment to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 came into force. The CESTAT dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The appellants contended that the Tribunal ought to have waived the pre-deposit in view of the jurisdictional challenge and acute financial distress. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the requirement of pre-deposit under amended Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 was mandatory and the discretion available under the unamended provision to waive the deposit no longer survived. It held that the CESTAT had no power to dispense with the statutory pre-deposit on the ground of financial hardship or a jurisdictional challenge. The Court observed that the question of jurisdiction could be examined only after the appeals became maintainable by compliance with the statutory pre-deposit. Relying upon Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India 2022 (380) E.L.T. 130 (S.C.) and Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India 2015 (320) E.L.T. 71 (All.), the Court upheld the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with Section 129E and held that no substantial question of law arose.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Deepu Jewellers LLC Dubai, dated 29.8.2019 by CESTAT, Allahabad — Affirmed [Paras 2, 20, 23, 34, 35]
- Kishore Ratilal Dhakan, dated 29.8.2019 by CESTAT, Allahabad — Affirmed [Paras 2, 20, 23, 34, 35]
- Samrah Gold Factory Limited, dated 29.8.2019 by CESTAT, Allahabad — Affirmed [Paras 2, 20, 23, 34, 35]
- Ajit Exports v. Commissioner — Customs Appeal No. 70243 of 2021, dated 31.1.2022 by CESTAT, Allahabad — Affirmed [Paras 2, 35]
List of Cases Cited
-
- Seville Products Limited v. Commissioner — 2020 (373) E.L.T. 554 (Tri.-Del) — Referred [Para 11]
- C.K. Kunhammed v. Collector of Central Excise — 1992 (62) E.L.T. 146 (CEGAT – CHENNAI) — Referred [Para 11]
- Shafeek P.K. v. Commissioner — 2015 (325) E.L.T. 199 (Tri.-Bang) — Referred [Para 11]
- Shri Ankur Agarwal, Director Asia Pacific Impex Pvt. Ltd. Hong Kong v. Principal Commissioner — Customs Appeal No. 50079 of 2020, dated 18 February, 2022 – Referred [Para 12]
- Vijay Chauhan v. Commissioner — 2019 (365) E.L.T. 864 (Del.) — Referred [Para 15]
- Nawal Kishore Singh v. Commissioner — 2019 (366) E.L.T. 968 (Del.) — Referred [Para 15]
- Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India — 2022 (380) E.L.T. 130 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 18, 20]
- Ganesh Yadav v. Union of India — 2015 (320) E.L.T. 71 (All.) — Relied on [Paras 18, 21, 22]
- Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (326) E.L.T. 472 (Delhi) — Noted [Paras 18, 22]
- Prerna Singh v. Commission — 2020 (372) E.L.T. 610 (Tri.-Bom) — Referred [Para 19]
