Full Text
Translation output
$2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSAA 3/2013
CHIRAG TEXTILES Appellant
Through Mr Harish Kohli
CUSAA 3/2013
CHIRAG TEXTILES Appellant
Through Mr Harish Kohli
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondent
Through : Mr Kamal Nijhawan with Mr Jitender Kumar
Through : Mr Kamal Nijhawan with Mr Jitender Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EAS WAR
19.02.2013
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EAS WAR
19.02.2013
CM 2305/2013 (exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM 2306/2013 (delay in re-filing)
The delay in re-filing is condoned.
This application stands disposed of CUS. A. A.No.3/2013 & CM 2304/2013
This is an appeal from the order dated 28.03 .2012 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) in C/ROA 8-
9/2011 in C/467-468/2009. The impugned order was passed in a miscellaneous application filed by the appellant seeking restoration of the appeals which were dismissed by an order dated 25.10.2010 by the Tribunal on the ground of non- compliance of the said order dated 27.10.2009, whereby, inter alia, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of 5 lacs within a period of eight weeks.
The appellant was unable to make the arrangement for the said sum of 5 lacs
2013:DHC:6665-DB and requested for time to comply with the said order. Despite the extension of time granted by the Tribunal, the appellant was unable to make the deposit of the said amount of Z 5 lacs and, by virtue of the order dated 25.10.2010, the appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the condition of pre- deposit.
It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to the Tribunal that subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant had been able to arrange for a sum of Z 1 lac and had deposited that amount with the department.
It However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant did not have the wherewithal to deposit the entire amount of Z 5 lacs. He submitted that the appellant was facing acute financial difficulty and as a result of which the deposit of Z 1 lac be accepted as the pre-deposit amount and the appeal be heard on merits.
The Tribunal, however, did not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and dismissed the miscellaneous application
.dw by virtue of the impugned order.
After having heard the counsel for the parties, we feel that this is clearly a case of extreme financial hardship inasmuch as after dismissal of the appeal, it was open to the revenue to recover the penalty amount but, even the revenue has not been able to recover that amount from the appellant although a period of almost four years had elapsed. The sincerity of the appellant is indicated by the fact that even after dismissal of the appeal, he had, on his own, come forward and made the deposit of Z 1 lac. Taking these facts into account, we feel that the pre-deposit amount ought to be restricted to the sum of Z 1 lac already deposited by the appellant and the appellant's appeal be restored and heard on merits by the Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of
Dasti.
BiEZ AI-IMED, J R.V.EAS WAR, J FEBRUARY 19, 2013
SR
The delay in re-filing is condoned.
This application stands disposed of CUS. A. A.No.3/2013 & CM 2304/2013
This is an appeal from the order dated 28.03 .2012 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) in C/ROA 8-
9/2011 in C/467-468/2009. The impugned order was passed in a miscellaneous application filed by the appellant seeking restoration of the appeals which were dismissed by an order dated 25.10.2010 by the Tribunal on the ground of non- compliance of the said order dated 27.10.2009, whereby, inter alia, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of 5 lacs within a period of eight weeks.
The appellant was unable to make the arrangement for the said sum of 5 lacs
2013:DHC:6665-DB and requested for time to comply with the said order. Despite the extension of time granted by the Tribunal, the appellant was unable to make the deposit of the said amount of Z 5 lacs and, by virtue of the order dated 25.10.2010, the appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the condition of pre- deposit.
It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to the Tribunal that subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant had been able to arrange for a sum of Z 1 lac and had deposited that amount with the department.
It However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant did not have the wherewithal to deposit the entire amount of Z 5 lacs. He submitted that the appellant was facing acute financial difficulty and as a result of which the deposit of Z 1 lac be accepted as the pre-deposit amount and the appeal be heard on merits.
The Tribunal, however, did not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and dismissed the miscellaneous application
.dw by virtue of the impugned order.
After having heard the counsel for the parties, we feel that this is clearly a case of extreme financial hardship inasmuch as after dismissal of the appeal, it was open to the revenue to recover the penalty amount but, even the revenue has not been able to recover that amount from the appellant although a period of almost four years had elapsed. The sincerity of the appellant is indicated by the fact that even after dismissal of the appeal, he had, on his own, come forward and made the deposit of Z 1 lac. Taking these facts into account, we feel that the pre-deposit amount ought to be restricted to the sum of Z 1 lac already deposited by the appellant and the appellant's appeal be restored and heard on merits by the Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of
Dasti.
BiEZ AI-IMED, J R.V.EAS WAR, J FEBRUARY 19, 2013
SR
JUDGMENT