Ravi Singhal v. Commissioner Central Excise (Adjn)

Delhi High Court · 18 Aug 2015 · 2015:DHC:10905-DB
S. Muralidhar; Vibhu Bakhru
CEAC 28/2015 & CEAC 33/2015
2015:DHC:10905-DB
administrative appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court condoned delay and modified pre-deposit conditions to restore the appellant's excise penalty appeal for adjudication on merits.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
6.
CEAC 28/2015
RAVI SINGHAL Appellant
Through: MrPankajBhatia,Advocate.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE(ADJN) Respondent
Through: Mr Satish Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel.
AND
43..
CEAC 33/2015
RAVI SINGHAL Appellant
Through: MrPankajBhatia,Advocate.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER CENTRALEXCISE(ADJN) Respondent
Through: Mr Satish Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
18.08.2015
CEAC28/2015& CEAC33/2015 Page1of3
2015:DHC:10905-DB CM No.15765/2015 in CEAC 33/2015
1.For the reasons stated in the application,the delay of86 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
2.The application stands disposed of.
CM No.15764/2015 in CEAC 33/2015 3.Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
4.The application stands disposed of.
CEAC 28/2015 & CM No.18840/2015 & CEAC 33/2015 & CM
No.15763/2015
ORDER

5. These appeals are filed by Mr Ravi Singhal,Director ofM/s Supreme Road Transport (P) Ltd. against the order dated 9th December 2014 and 1®^ September, 2014 respectively passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,New Delhi(CESTAT).

6. Bythe order dated 1st September2014the Appellant wasrequired to deposit 50% of the confirmed penalty amount of Rs.l crore imposed by the Commissioner within six weeks. By the second impugned order dated 9th December 2014 the Appellant's appeal before the CESTAT was dismissed on account of the failure by the Appellant to pay the pre-deposit amount within the time granted. CEAC28/2015& CEAC33/2015 Page2of[3]

7. It is pointed out that the company of which the Appellant is the Director has ceased its business activities and the Appellant himself is in a dire financial condition.

8. Having considered the submissions ofthe learned counsel for the parties, the Court directs that, subject to the Appellant depositing a sum of10 lakhs on or before 30"^ September 2015,the impugned order dated 1®'September, 2014 ofthe CESTAT will stand modified and the second impugned order dated 9"^ December,2014 shall stand set aside and the Appellant's appeal shall stand restored to the file ofthe CESTAT for disposal on merits. It is made clear that ifthe Appellant fails to make the pre-deposit ofRs.lO lakhs within the time granted, the appeal before the CESTAT shall remain dismissed.The appeals and applications are disposed ofin the aboveterms.

S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHU BAKHRU,J AUGUST 18,2015 MK CEAC28/2015& CEAC33/2015 Page3of[3]