9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to final order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal for rejection of waiver application and dismissal of appeal due to default in depositing amount within prescribed time. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the final order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which rejected the waiver application and dismissed the appeal due to default in depositing the amount within the prescribed time. The petitioner was assessed Excise duty of Rs. 61,358.21 by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, which was confirmed by the Collector Appeals, Central Excise. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Second Appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver under section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Tribunal rejected the waiver application and directed the petitioner to deposit the duty amount within two months. Despite the expiry of the two-month period, the petitioner deposited the duty amount on 19.8.1994. However, the Tribunal had already dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the legal requirement. The petitioner contended that his statutory right of appeal should not be taken away solely because of the delay in depositing the duty amount. The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the statutory right of appeal, subject to the condition of pre-deposit, is a valuable right of the assessee. The Court held that if the assessee ultimately deposits the entire duty amount and wishes to contest it under the law, the interest of justice demands that an opportunity for a hearing should be granted. Therefore, the High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the restoration application and hear the appeal on merit, affording full opportunity to both the appellant's counsel and the departmental representative for the revenue within three months. This judgment highlights the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the fundamental right of access to justice. It underscores the principle that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities, especially when the party has made efforts to rectify any procedural lapses. The Court's decision serves as a reminder that the purpose of legal proceedings is to ensure fairness and equity, and that rigid adherence to formalities should not impede the rightful exercise of legal rights.
|
