S.T. Texturisers and Another vs Union of India and Others

R.K. Abichandani, J.—Rule in both the petitions. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service of Rule. At the request of the learned Counsel, the matters are heard today.

The petitioners challenge the order dated 10th March, 2000, of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, at Annexure "1" to the petition, rejecting the petitioner''s application for restoring the Appeals, on the basis that the amounts which were required to be deposited as a condition for hearing the Appeals and which were not earlier deposited resulting in dismissal of the appeals, have now been deposited. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 10.3.2000, held that the orders dismissing the appeals for non compliance were made on 28.5.1998, while the deposits for the amounts in question were made on various dates after ten months from the date by which compliance of the stay orders had to be shown. According to the Tribunal, the delay in making the deposits was not satisfactorily explained. The petitioners have stated in their application that the delay was caused for reasons beyond their control and due to the weak financial position of the petitioners, the deposit could be made only after obtaining loans from the bank. The petitioners had a valuable right of appeal and when they made the deposits, the Tribunal ought to have exercised its discretion for hearing the appeals on merits, on the authority of the decision of this Court in Hussain Haji Harun alias Hussein Kabiju vs. Union of India and ors., reported in AIR 1988 (Guj.) 218 as also on the basis of the decision of the CEGAT, Special Bench "B1", New Delhi in the case of 1994 (74) ELT 46 , on which the reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this is a fit case where the Tribunal ought to have exercised its discretion for hearing the appeals on merits, in view of the fact that deposits have already been made. The impugned order dated 10.3.2000 is therefore, set aside and the Tribunal is directed to restore the appeals, if the amount as ordered by the Tribunal is already paid up, and hear the appeals on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly in both these petitions, with no order as to costs.