2008 (2) TMI 438 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Predeposit - Held that - The matters are required to be remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeals on merits in view of compliance by the petitioner with the direction for pre-deposit of 90% of the duty amount, no further discussion is warranted as regards the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against order of Tribunal dismissing applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders.

Analysis:
The petition under Article 226 challenged the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with pre-deposit orders. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in importing vessels for breaking, faced differential duty demands confirmed by the Central Excise and Customs Department. The Commissioner (Appeals) required a 90% deposit for stay, leading to dismissal of appeals when the petitioner couldn't comply. The Tribunal dismissed the delay condonation applications, prompting the petition. The High Court initially dismissed the petition for delay but later allowed a review application upon payment of the balance duty amount, leading to the current hearing.

The preliminary objection raised was that writ petitions challenging Tribunal orders on delay applications should not be entertained due to the availability of alternative remedies like Tax Appeals. However, the Court noted the peculiar facts where the petitioner had paid the entire 90% duty amount as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the review application's approval. The Court decided not to delve into factual disputes but remit the matters back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for merit-based decisions.

The petitioner explained the delay citing business losses, recession, and lack of knowledge about orders. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's deposit exceeding the duty amount and the subsequent reduction in duty liability in similar cases upon remand for re-adjudication. Emphasizing the petitioner's right to challenge the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, the Court found the petitioner's conduct and compliance with pre-deposit directions as indicative of good faith, warranting a remand for merit-based appeal decisions.

The Court allowed the petition, set aside the Tribunal's orders, and remanded the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for merit-based decisions due to the petitioner's compliance with pre-deposit requirements. The Tribunal's dismissal orders were deemed inconsequential for the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision-making process. To expedite the decade-old dispute's resolution, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearings, aiming for a decision by a specified date. The rule was made absolute with no costs awarded, and copies of the order were directed to be served on the concerned parties for compliance.