IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.19386 OF 2007 (T-TAR) BETWEEN:
BIMAL KUMAR JAIN SON OF SHRI ABHAY RAM JAIN, RESIDING AT: HD-50, VISHAKHA ENCLAVE, DELHI.
(BY SRI AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-II, COMMISSIONERATE, SHULK BHAWAN, 7TH FLOOR, L. B. STADIUM ROAD, BASHIR BAGH, HYDERABAD-29.
(BY SRI A. D. VIJAYA HAVANUR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH FINAL ORDER DATED 07.09.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE CESTAT TO HEAR APPEAL NOS.979/2004-981 OF 2004 WITHOUT INSISTING ON ANY PRE-DEPOSIT.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed by the CESTAT in final order Nos.1068 to 1079 of 2007 and Miscellaneous Order No.468 to 473 of 2007 dated 7-9-2007 rejecting the applications, the present petition is filed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that an appeal was filed before the CESTAT and by the order dated 2-1-2007, there was a direction to make the pre-deposit. That if the appellants failed to comply with the terms of the said order, the appeals would entail dismissal. Seeking modification of the said order, the instant miscellaneous application was filed. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the same. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be set aside. That a modification is called for and an exemption to make the pre-deposit should be granted. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. What is challenged herein is an order passed on a miscellaneous application. The application was to modify the order dated 1-2-2007 seeking a pre-deposit. That order continues. A pre-deposit is a statutory requirement. It can be waived only to a particular extent. Therefore, liberty was always reserved to the petitioner to comply with the said order by making a pre-deposit. He having failed or declining to make the payment, we find no error committed by the Tribunal.
Moreover, the order is passed on a miscellaneous application wherein the original order dated 2-7-2007 is also undisturbed and accepted. Hence, we find no good ground to interfere. Petition is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-