9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) dismissing the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the petitioner's appeals for non-compliance with the orders of pre-deposit. 2. The broad facts leading to filing of this petition are as under : 2.1 The petitioner, a partnership firm, was engaged in the business of importing various vessels/ships and breaking them at Alang Ship Breaking Yard. The petitioner brought four vessels for breaking during period from 1991 to 1996. On filing bills of entries. Central Excise and Customs Department had made assessment and the demand for differential duty was confirmed. 2.2 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 24-7-2007, this Court allowed the review application in the following terms : "Considering the submissions and for substantial justice, we hereby order that in case the petitioner pays the balance amount of duty and penalty, if any, as per order dated 25-6-2002, our order dated 12-10-2006 stands recalled and the delay condoned. It is also made clear that the balance amount of duty, and penalty if any, as per order dated 25-6-2002 be paid within two weeks from today. If the petitioner pays the balance amount of duty within two weeks, the review petition also stands allowed." 4. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner paid the balance amount of duty within two weeks. Accordingly, the review petition stood allowed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling appeals before the Tribunal : "6. As stated above, the applicant had incurred huge losses and had been constrained to stop its ship-breaking activity since 2001 and its rights in the plot were also subsequently sold by the Bank in order to recover the dues. In fact, there was a deep recession prevailing in the ship-breaking industry on account of which Shri Ashok N. Patel, who was the only person handling the firm, was compelled to wind up the business and start a new business of building and road contractors on account of which, he was required to stay outside Bhavnagar for work for very long periods and rarely visited Bhavnagar and the firm's office at Bhavnagar remained closed and all employees had to be retrenched. The order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are of the view that the petitioner should not be deprived of the opportunity of agitating his grievances on merits of the dispute merely on the ground that initially, the petitioner had not deposited 90% of the duty amount as per the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and that such amounts came to be deposited only thereafter, during pendency of proceedings before this Court. A perusal of the above explanation would indicate that the petitioner had not abandoned his right to challenge the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the subsequent conduct on the part of the petitioner in depositing the entire 90% amount as per the pre-deposit orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) also indicates bona fides of the petitioner. 10. We are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
