9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e disposal of this appeal are as follows : Appellant was imposed with a penalty of Rs. 2 Crores under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Ext. P1 Order dated 02.02.2017 issued by the 1st respondent. Though the Customs Act envisages an appeal against the said Order before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), the appellant found the said route too onerous as it mandated a pre-deposit of around Rs. 15 lakhs for filing the appeal. The appellant instead chose to file a Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No. 12054 of 2017) before this Court challenging the Ext. P1 Order. Subsequently, upon realising that a Writ Petition would not be the proper remedy to challenge Ext. P1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onable period of the dismissal of the Writ Petition and that since more than four years have elapsed since the passing of Ext. P3 Order, there was no merit in the request for restoration of appeal preferred by the appellant. It was also reasoned by the Tribunal in the Order of dismissal that no plausible reason had been stated by the appellant justifying the cause of the delay and to substantiate the prayer for restoration. Thus, with recovery proceedings looming large, the appellant preferred W.P.(C) No. 37690 of 2023 before this Court, the dismissal of which by the learned Single Judge is assailed before us in this appeal. 4. We have heard Smt. V. Vijitha, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Preetha S. Nair, the learned Standi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal is only to be dismissed in limine. She contended that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal in limine and should have given a breathing time to the appellant to enable the appellant to get the pending Writ Petition disposed. As for Ext. P5 Order, which later dismissed the appellant's restoration petition, she assails it too on the ground that it does not reflect any application of mind by the Tribunal to the reasons elaborated therein for the delay, which according to her, had explained the true, correct and cogent reasons for condoning the delay and restoring the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant would summarize that upon a cumulative appreciation of the fact that the appellant had remitted the mandatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he mandatory pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs as early as in 2017 itself. We note that vide Ext. P3 Order the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal in limine even after noting that the Writ Petition filed regarding the same subject matter is pending before the High Court. Taking note of the fact that the appellant had preferred the appeal as envisaged in Sec. 129 A (1) of the Act and had already remitted the mandatory pre-deposit, the Tribunal ought to have granted the appellant a reasonable opportunity to take appropriate steps for getting the Writ Petition, which was then pending before this Court, disposed of and then to permit him to pursue his remedy in the pending appeal before the Tribunal. Non-suiting him in limine does not appear to be reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
