Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 693 (KAR)

INU Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

2000-10-16

H.L.DATTU

body2000
ORDER H.L. Dattu, J.—The issues raised in these writ petitions lie in a very narrow compass. 2. Petitioners in these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, call in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders made by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore dated 9-12-1999. 3. Petitioners aggrieved by the orders made by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore, have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore. Along with the appeals, petitioners have also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit. 4. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise after hearing the Counsel for the petitioners, in his order dated 9-12-1999 observes that petitioners may have got a good case on merits that the same requires to be examined at a later stage. Therefore, the Commissioner was not prepared to grant an unconditional waiver of pre-deposit as sought for by the petitioners. In view of that the Commissioner directs the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs out of the total amount of Rs. 24,29,992/-, demanded by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore. 5. I have carefully perused the orders made by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore. While partly allowing the application filed by the petitioners for waiver of pre-deposit, takes into consideration the prima facie 0case made out by the petitioners and also the financial hardship pleaded by the parties before him. After such consideration, he is of the view that petitioners are not entitled to an unconditional waiver of pre-deposit. Therefore, the Commissioner directs them to deposit a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs out of Rs. 24,29,992/- payable by the petitioners. In my opinion, the order made by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore, does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner in these writ petitions cannot be granted by this Court. Accordingly, these writ petitions require to be rejected. 6. However, Shri Habibullah, learned Senior Counsel submits that, if for any reason the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as directed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore, at least a direction may be 'issued to him to consider and decide the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible. 6. However, Shri Habibullah, learned Senior Counsel submits that, if for any reason the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as directed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore, at least a direction may be 'issued to him to consider and decide the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible. In my opinion, the request made by the learned Senior Counsel is highly reasonable. 7. For the reasons stated, these writ petitions are rejected. However, a direction is issued to the appellate authority to consider the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner within four weeks from the date a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as directed by him in his order dated 9-12-1999 is deposited by the petitioners. All the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly.