Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 150 (PNJ)

Shree Narain Metal Rolling Mills v. Cegat

2002-02-04

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2002
Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. The Assessing Authority found the petitioner liable to deposit excise duty to the tune of Rs. 4,27,972-00. A penalty of Rs. 42,000-00 was also imposed. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner, then, approached the CEGAT with an appeal. An application dated September 27, 1999 was also filed with the prayer that the condition of pre-deposit be waived. The matter was considered by the Tribunal vide order dated December 7, 1999. The petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lac within eight weeks. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-17 with the writ petition. The petitioner did not make the deposit and submitted another application after the expiry of the time allowed to it. This prayer was not accepted. The petitioner made a total deposit of Rs. 20,000/-only. It failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 1 lac as directed. On July 3, 2000, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioners appeal with the following observations :- "We find that time for pre-deposit was extended on more than one occasion and that thy financial hardship was considered by the Bench, while directing partial deposit. Hence, there is no ground either tor modification of the Stay Order or further extension of time. We, therefore dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944." Hence, this petition. 2. In response, to the notice of motion, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners liability was Rs. 4,67,972/-. A concession was shown. It was allowed to make a deposit of Rs. 1 lac. The petitioner failed to make the deposit. However, Counsel for the petitioner has today stated before us that the requisite deposit as ordered by the CEGAT on December 7, 1999 shall be made within two weeks from today. He prays that on the deposit being made, the petitioners appeal should be considered and decided on merits. 4. Mr. Cumber, appearing for the respondents, does not oppose this prayer. 5. He prays that on the deposit being made, the petitioners appeal should be considered and decided on merits. 4. Mr. Cumber, appearing for the respondents, does not oppose this prayer. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioner makes the deposit in accordance with the order dated December 7, 1999 passed by the Tribunal on or before 22-2-2002, its appeal shall be considered and decided on merits. The order of dismissal passed by the Tribunal on July 3, 2000 shall stand quashed. In case, the petitioner fails to make the deposit, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No costs. 6. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.