9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing appeal for failure to make pre-deposit as directed. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order dismissing their appeal for not making the pre-deposit as directed. The petitioner had applied for DEPB for exporting spanners, but issues arose regarding the date of application and eligibility for DEPB at a specific rate. Penal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for alleged ante-dating of the shipment date, resulting in a penalty and cancellation of DEPB. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed for not furnishing the pre-deposit as required by the Foreign Trade (D&R) Act, 1992. The petitioner challenged this decision, leading to a series of orders and directions from the Court and the Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the petitioner had eventually submitted the pre-deposit after the initial dismissal of the appeal. The revenue's counsel argued against granting any concession to the petitioner for the delay in submitting the pre-deposit. Upon considering the submissions and the record, the Court directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits since the pre-deposit had been made. The Court criticized the appellate authority for expressing findings on merits in the initial order, which was deemed inappropriate. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dismissing the appeal and restored it to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing that the authority should consider the arguments presented by the parties and their counsel. In conclusion, the Court set aside the order dismissing the appeal, restored it to the appellate authority, and directed the authority to hear the appeal on merits, taking into account the arguments presented by the parties. The parties were instructed to appear before the appellate authority for further proceedings, and a copy of the order was to be provided to the authority for necessary action.
|
