CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Bharat Wire Mfg. Co. vs Union of India (UOI)

Bombay High Court · Decided on 25 August 1998 · Citation: (1998) 78 ECR 771 : (1998) 104 ELT 329

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.P. Saraf, J · A.Y. Sakhare, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1630 of 1998
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 357 words
1.

By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai (Exh. L to the Petition),by which the petitioners have been directed to deposit the full amount of duty as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal.

2.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, who are agreed that this writ petition can be finally disposed of at this stage itself. Hence, Rule, returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent, this writ petition is taken on board for hearing.

3.

Heard Mr. S.N. Kantawala, learned Counsel for the petitioners, who submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the order of this Court in the case of the petitioners themselves, in respect of earlier period, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) should not have directed the petitioners to pay the full amount of duty as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal. According to the learned Counsel, the highest amount they should have been directed to pay is 25% of the demand.

4.

Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was justified in insisting on the deposit of full amount on disputed duty as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal. Mr. Shah further submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the same, therefore, does not deserve interference.

5.

On a careful consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the impugned order, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that the direction to deposit the full amount of disputed duty as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal is little harsh. In our opinion ends of justice will be met in this case, if the impugned order is modified and the Commissioner is directed to admit the appeal on depositing of Rs. 4 lacs as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal. Deposit to be made within six weeks. The impugned order is modified accordingly.

6.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.