Case Law Details

Case Name : Shri Rauf Bombaywala Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhavasheva
Appeal Number : [2014-TIOL-2442-CESTAT-MUM]
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :

Tribunal dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable on failure to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirements

Shri Rauf Bombaywala (the Appellant) preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai against Order-in-Original No. 01/2014-15 dated May 7, 2014 vide which penalty of Rs.1.17 crore was imposed on the Appellant.

In terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act) as amended by the Finance Act, 2014, the Appellant was required to make a pre-deposit of 10%{Our Comments: This should have been 7.5% instead of 10%} of penalty imposed while filing the appeal. However, the Appellant did not make such pre-deposit.

Thus, the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act.

Author Bio

More Under Custom Duty


  1. adv. dr.g.balakrishnan says:

    whether hon tribunal first checked whether department has jurisdiction legally in the matter, if not mandatory deposit is a farce that is natural justice and rule of law per Art 14 r/w Art 19(1)(a) and r/w Art 21;

    before deciding on law aspect any dismissal under so called sec 129 is a unjustifiable ;

    if the petitioner has observed any legal jurisdictional deficiency, he can directly move under Art 226 before high court of Bombay that is a settled law; if there is jurisdictional deficiency Hn High court would admit his writ!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

October 2021