NAVINCHANDRA CHHOTELAL versus CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 13-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
357 
NA VINCHANDRA CHHOTELAL 
v. 
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS & ORS. 
January 13, 1971 
[J. M. SH
0ELAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Customs Act (32 of 1962), ss. 128 and 129(1) and provis<>-Scope of. 
The Collector of Customs and Excise confiscated certain smuggled 
i;oods and levied a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the appellant under 
s. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. He filed an appeal under s.· 128 before 
the first respondent and pleaded that the deposit of penalty as required by 
s. 129 may be waived. 
The first respondent, after hearing him on the 
preliminary point regarding waiver, of deposit of penalty ordered that the 
appeal would be heard on merits l'f a sum of Rs. 10,000 out of, the total 
penalty was deposited by the appellant; but, since the , appellant failed to 
deposit even the amount of Rs. 10,000 within the prescribed period, the 
appeal was rejected. The appellant carried the matter in revision to. the 
Government. 
He was given a further opportunity to deposit the sum of 
Rs. 10,000 but as he again failed to do so, the revision petition was rejected. 
A writ pelition to quash the orders of the first respondent and the Govern-
ment was dismissed by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (1) Section 129(1) makes it obligatory on the person filing 
an appeal to deposit the penalty levied pending the disposal of the appeal 
on merits. The proviso to the section gives power to the Appellate Antho-
rity, in appropriate cases, to dispense with such deposit unconditionally or 
subject to such conditions as it may deem fit. 
Even though the section, 
does not expressly provide for the rejection of the appeal for non-compli· 
ance with the requirements regarding deposit or with any order that may 
be passed under the proviso, the Appellate Authority is competent to reject 
the appeal in those circumotances. Otherwise, the appeal will have to be 
kept on file and such retention will serve no purpose, because, the 
Appellate Authority canno'. dispose of the appeal on merits when the re· 
quirements of s. 129(1) are not complied with. [362 F-G; 364 A-C} 
(2) The rejection of the appeal and revision would mean that the 
appellant was bound by the order of the Collector, but that result was 
brought about only by the appellant's default. [364 D-EJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 105 ol. 
1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated August 24, 1966 
of the Punjab High Court. Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Writ 
No. 666-D of 1966. 
ff 
U. M. Trivedi, Swaranjit Sodhi and S. S. Shukla, for the appel-
lant. 
L. M. Singhvi and S. P. Nayar, for the. respondents. 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971]3 S.C.R. 
The Judgmeint of the Court was delivered by 
A 
Vaidfalingam, J. This 
appeal, 
by special 
leave, 
is 
against the judgment and order datc:ct.August 24, 1966 of the 
Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Cotllf at New Delhi dismissing 
in limine Civil Writ No. 666-D of 1966 filed by the appellant to 
quash the orders of the first and second r~pondents dated Decem-
ber 7, 1965 and April 23, 1966 respectively. 
B 
The main question that arises for consideration in this appeal 
is whether the order of the first respondent, Central ·Board of 
Excise and Customs, New Delhi, rejecting the appeal filed by the · 
· appellant for non.,comp!i3jllce with the provisions of s. 129 of 
.the Customs Act, .1962 (Act 32 of 1962) · (hereinafter to be 
referred as the Act) was justified .. The point lies within a very 
C 
narrow compass and hence it is not necessary to state elaborately 
the.allegations. made against the appellant for taking action under 
the Act read With the material provisions of the Import and Ex-
port Control Act, 194 7. . The appellant was called up0n by the 
third. respondent, Collector' of Customs and Excise, Cochin, to 
show cause why he should not be penalised under s. 112(b) of 
the Act and why he should not be prosecuted under s. 135 (b) 
D 
of the Act. 
Similarly anot1¥:r 
notice was issued against one 
Rodrigues, with whom we are not concerned in these proceedings. 
The appellant made representations against the show cause notice 
and he was also given an opportunity to contest the allegatio,ns 
mad~lagainst him. The third respondent by his order dated July 
18, A 964 held that th~ ruby stone in question was smuggled into 
E 
India by Rodrigues at the instance of the appellant and in pur-
suance of an agreement entered into between them and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.