Shriya Textiles vs Commissioner of Customs

Issue notice. Sh. Kamal Nijhawan, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice. The substantial question of law urged is as follows:

''Whether the Tribunal could have insisted upon pre-deposit of any amount for hearing''.

The appellant had succeeded in its appeal before the Commissioner of Customs.

The facts necessary for the present case are that the assessee was issued with Show Cause Notice on 15-6-2009, alleging that it had prepared false documents in respect of some exports, i.e. DEPB Script. In the initial round, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), by order dated 3-1-2012 remitted the matter for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. In the second round, the adjudicating authority, the Additional Commissioner, on 29-10-2012, confirmed the allegations in the Show Cause Notice. This led to the appellant assessee preferring an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs on 19-2-2013, for setting aside the order of the adjudicating authority. The Revenue, claiming to be aggrieved, approached the CESTAT, which by order dated 11-2-2014 has even while directing stay of operation of the appellate authority''s order, directed the respondent to file 10 lakhs within four weeks. The assessee contends that the power of granting interim relief in such circumstances does not extend to directing the successful assessee to make any deposit. Learned counsel for the respondent Revenue, on the other hand, says that the order of the Commissioner was not in the interest of the Revenue and contained several errors on the face of the record. It is also submitted that the larger interest of the Revenue require that some minimum deposit had to be insisted upon. This Court has considered the submissions. Section 129E enables the persons aggrieved by the orders of the lower authority to prefer an appeal to the CESTAT. The further direction to deposit duty and interest demanded or the penalty levied? facially would be applicable to aggrieved assessee, who has suffered adverse orders. It cannot apply to these circumstances where the assessee as in the present case is a respondent. In these circumstances, the direction of the CESTAT to the appellant to deposit 10 lakhs is unwarranted. Accordingly the said order is set aside. The CESTAT shall deal with the revenue''s appeal on merits without calling for pre-deposit by assessee. CUS. A.A. 11/2014 is accordingly disposed of.