Case: CHANDRA SEKHAR JHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA &amp; ANR

2. The appellant while traveling in a train was intercepted. The case against him appears to be that he was carrying Gold smuggled into India from Bangladesh, and was accompanied with another person also. On conclusion of the proceedings, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) West Bengal, Kolkata passed a common order, wherein the appellant came to be visited with penalty in a sum of Rs.75 lakhs. It appears that the other person was also asked to pay penalty. They preferred appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in the year 2017. The Tribunal finding that the appellant has not made pre-deposit dismissed the appeal. It is this order which was put in issue before the High Court and the High Court has upheld the order.

Court's reasoning:
7. The question whether it is undue hardship has been the subject matter of the judgment of this Court in Benara Valves Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and another, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 347,  wherein it, inter alia, held as follow:-13. For a hardship to be undue it must be shown that the particular burden to observe or perform the requirement is out of proportion to the nature of the requirement itself, and the benefit which the applicant would derive from compliance with it.8. It is in sharp departure from the previous regime that the new provision has been enacted. Under the new regime, on the one hand, the amount to be deposited to maintain the appeal has been reduced from 100% to 7.5% but the discretion which was made available to the appellate body to scale down the pre-deposit has been taken away.10. As far as the argument of the appellant that for the reason that the incident which triggered the appeal filed by the appellant took place in the year 2013, the appellant must be given the benefit of the power available under the substituted provision, it does not appeal to us. The substitution has effected a repeal and it has re-enacted the provision as it is contained in Section 129E. In fact, the acceptance of the argument would involve a dichotomy in law. On the one hand, what the appellant is called upon to pay is not the full amount as is contemplated in Section 129(E) before the substitution. The order passed by the Commissioner is dated 23.11.2015 which is after the substitution of Section 129E. The appellant filed the appeal in 2017. What the appellant is called upon to pay is the amount in terms of Section 129E after the substitution, namely, the far lesser amount in terms of the fixed percentage as provided in section 129E. The appellant, however, would wish to have the benefit of the proviso which, in fact, appropriately would apply only to a case where the appellant is maintaining the appeal and he is called upon to pay the full amount under Section 129E under the earlier avtar.