Harts Cocoa Products Pvt. Ltd. vs CEGAT

S. Jagadeesan, J.—By consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench

at Madras, dated 4-12-1998. The said order is as follows :

By Stay Order No. 216/95, dated 23-11-1995 the appellant had been directed to pre-deposit Rs. 50,000/- on or before 30th January, 1996

and report compliance on 31-1-1996. The appellants had not complied instead they had been filing Miscellaneous Application time and again,

these have been disposed of on number of occasions. The last miscellaneous application disposed of by Miscellaneous Order No. 685/98, dated

2-11-1998. By this order they were given last and final chance to pre-deposit the entire amount as directed by earlier orders u/s 35F of the Act

and report compliance today.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal is totally erred in disposing the appeal on the ground of non-

compliance of order dated 23-11-1995, since the petitioner has complied with the said order by depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 30-1-1996.

In fact subsequent to the said deposit the appeal had been disposed of finally on 27-6-1996 and the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.

18571 of 1996. Thereafter the writ petition was withdrawn and rectification petition was filed before CEGAT. In the rectification petition, the

CEGAT had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 12-2-1998. Though the petitioner expressed their inability to deposit the

sum, on two instances, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on 23-3-1998 and...subsequent to that impugned order was passed dismissing the appeal.

Notice was ordered to the respondents. Mr. S. Sethuraman, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents fairly

conceded that the petitioner has complied with the order dated 23-11-1995 by depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. But however, he has not

complied with the order dated 12-2-1998 and as such he may be directed to deposit some more amount.

I have carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. When the reason given in the impugned order cannot be sustained, naturally the

order is liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the conditional order dated 23-11-1995 had been complied with since the petitioner has paid the

amount on 30-1-1996. Hence the statement made in the impugned order clearly shows the non-application of the mind by the Tribunal. Hence the

same is set aside and the appeal is restored to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits according to law. Writ

Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected W.M.P. is closed.