Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (6) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner, the adjudicating authority determined an amount of Rs. 12,80,613/- towards basic duty and a sum of Rs. 2,989.97 towards special duty as payable by the petitioner. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also at the same time levied upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Bombay who passed an order on 29th November, 1990 directing the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- within the time stipulated by it failing which the appeal filed by the petitioner was liable to be rejected. Pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty and penalty was, on that condition, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alled upon the petitioner to renew the bank guarantee as the same had expired. A copy of the said letter has also been enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure P-8 to the petition. The petitioner immediately renewed the bank guarantee up to 5th September, 2005 and informed the Superintendent about the same in terms of a letter dated 8th October, 2003. The petitioner alleges that when he inquired about the status of the appeal filed by him from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-IV, Division K-1, the Superintendent expressed ignorance about the same and directed the petitioner to contact the Divisional Office of K-1, Old Customs House, Bombay. Inquires from the Customs House, Bombay however led to the service of a copy of the order of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ms of an order dated 20th January, 2005. A reading of the said order would show that the petition was allowed to be withdrawn as the appeal was at the time of its dismissal pending before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and in the event of the same being restored, shall have to be heard by the Tribunal at Delhi. The petitioner was, therefore, given liberty to file an appropriate writ petition before this court. That is precisely how the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in this court. 7. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Prateek Kumar argued that the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner was, in the circumstances of the case, unjustified. He urged that the reasons given by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y learned counsel for the petitioner. The documents placed on record amply prove that the order passed by the Tribunal regarding pre-deposit and furnishing of bank guarantee had been complied with by the petitioner within the time stipulated for the purpose. The Tribunal was not, therefore, correct in holding that there was non-compliance with the said directions. In any event, the departmental representative appearing before the Tribunal ought to have pointed out the true facts to the Tribunal to avoid injustice to the petitioner. So also the service of notice regarding hearing of the appeal does not appear to have been served upon the petitioner or his counsel. Counsel for the petitioner had, in any case, passed away somewhere in the year .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o Delhi, death of the counsel for the petitioner, change of the address of the petitioner and non-service of notices etc. make out a case for restoration of the appeal. 10. We accordingly allow this writ petition; set aside the order dated 31st March, 2005 passed by the Tribunal and allow the petitioner's application for restoration of the appeal subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Fund within a period of two months. The petitioner shall also keep the bank guarantee furnished in terms of the Tribunal's order extended till such time the appeal is finally heard and disposed of. The petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal for further direction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates