Delhi High Court
M.S. International Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 11 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007 5 S T R 247, 2007 8 STT 148
Bench: M B Lokur, V Sanghi
ORDER
1. The grievance of the Petitioner is directed against an order dated 1st August, 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in C/Stay/812/2002-C in Appeal No. C/227/2002-C.
2. By the application on which the impugned order ha been passed, the Petitioner had sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to about Rs. 19.7 crores and an equal amount of penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing the matter and considering the prima facie case as well as the financial difficulty pleaded by the Petitioner, directed the Petitioner, by an order dated 13th August, 2002 to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 crores within eight weeks. Then the matter was adjourned to 16th October, 2002 for reporting compliance. It appears that since the Petitioner did not deposit the amount, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal with liberty to the Petitioner to apply for restoration in case the amount is deposited within 30 days.
4. In this writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order directing him to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 5 crores and has also prayed, by subsequent application for setting aside the order dated 16th October, 2002.
5. It appears that after the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner, a demand was raised by the Respondents.
6. When the writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 7th November, 2002, this Court restrained the Respondents from taking any coercive steps to realise the demands created in terms of the adjudication order, which was the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal.
7. On 27th January, 2003, this Court noted that despite two opportunities having been granted, the Respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. Accordingly, the case was admitted for final hearing and the interim order was confirmed.
8. Even today, we find that there is no counter affidavit on record filed by the Respondents, despite an order passed by this Court on 7th December, 2004 to the effect that the Revenue is not serious about the matter.
9. Be that as it may, we are of the view that since there is an interim order that has been operating in favor of the Petitioner for the last four year, and the amount involved is extremely high, it will be in the interest of justice if the appeal filed by the Petitioner is heard by the Tribunal without insisting on a pre-deposit. We are taking this view because we feel that since the interim order has continued for four years, and even if it continues for another few months, it will not prejudice the Revenue, which, as already noted, has not been particularly interested in pursuing the matter. Consequently, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Tribunal oh 1st August, 2002, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner within a period of three months from today and, in any case, before 31st December, 2006. This direction has been given because we are told by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the normal course, the Tribunal is disposing of the appeals of the year 2004 and since the appeal in the present case is of 2002, it should be given priority.
10. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
11. Needless to say, the appeal filed by the Petitioner will stand restored to the file of the Tribunal. Both the parties will appear before the Tribunal on 20th September, 2006 for further directions.
12. A copy of this order be delivered 'dusty' by the Registry to the Registrar of the Tribunal and be also handed over to learned Counsel for the parties.
