Allahabad High Court
M/S MARGO IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appeal may be filed, numbered and registered without the pre‑deposit of 7.5% of the disputed customs duty/penalty, and the proceeding may be marked as defective for the lack of pre‑deposit.
Summary
The petitioners, M/s Margo Impex Private Limited and another, sought to file an appeal against an Order‑in‑Original passed under the Customs Act, 1962, and requested that the respondent (the Customs Commissionerate, Noida) decide a waiver application pending before it. The issue was whether a pre‑deposit of 7.5% of the disputed customs duty/penalty had to be made before the appeal could be filed. The High Court relied on the earlier decision in M/s Runway Impex & Anr. v. Union of India, where it was held that the appeal could be filed, numbered and registered without insisting on the pre‑deposit, and the proceeding could be marked as defective for that reason. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the present writ petition on the same terms, directing that the appeal be allowed to be filed without pre‑deposit. The petition was therefore dismissed with directions mirroring the earlier case.
Issues considered
- Whether a pre‑deposit of 7.5% of the disputed customs duty/penalty is mandatory before filing an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962.
- Whether a proceeding lacking such pre‑deposit can be registered as a defective proceeding.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Customs duty
- pre‑deposit
- appeal filing
- defective proceeding
- Customs Act, 1962
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 2569 of 2026
M/S Margo Impex Private Limited And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akanksha Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Ms. Akanksha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Present writ petition raises a common legal issue. Visited with
Adjudication Order (Order-in-Original), passed under the provisions of the
Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner intend
to file appeal, thereagainst. He also seeks direction upon respondent no. 2 to
decide the petitioner's waiver application filed alongwith his appeal (M/s
Margo Impex Private Limited, M/s Aurangabad General Trading Vs. Joint
Commissioner, Customs Commissionerate, Noida) pending before
respondent no.2 against the Order-in-Original No. 51/JC/NOIDA-
CUS/2025-26 dated 28.11.2025.
3. In identical facts, M/s Runway Impex & Anr. Vs. Union of India & 2
Ors.; 2026:AHC:95732-DB has been disposed of vide order dated
28.04.2026 on the following terms:
"23. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of with the direction
that the proceeding being presented by the petitioner before the
Commissioner (Appeals), against the Order-in-Original dated
28.11.2025, must be allowed to be filed, numbered and thus registered,
without insisting on pre-deposit at the rate of 7.5% of the disputed
demand of customs duty/penalty, at that stage. Such proceeding may be
registered as a defective proceeding-for reason of pre-deposit not made
or proof of pre-deposit not produced, at that stage. The issue, whether
WTAX No. 2569 of 2026
2
that appeal is to be 'entertained', may be considered by the Commissioner
(Appeals), on the quasi-judicial side, where that proceeding is
listed/placed before it, first."
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same
terms.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
May 18, 2026
Bhanu
Digitally signed by :-
BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…