High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Vandana Exports, Moradabad v. Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) A.T., New Delhi And Others - WRIT TAX No. 1068 of 2001  RD-AH 21205 (15 December 2006)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 1068 OF 2001
M/S Vandana Exports, Moradabad. ....Petitioner
Customs, Excise & Gold (Control
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
And others. ...Respondents.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
By means of the present writ petition petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.08.2001 passed on the waiver cum stay application. By the aforesaid order Tribunal has allowed the application in part. Tribunal has directed to deposit the entire amount of duty at Rs.35,41,566/- but has waived pre-deposit of the amount of penalty.
Heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P.Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Though on 21.08.2006 Sri A.P. Mathur, Advocate stated that for non-compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal, appeal has been dismissed but today he stated that, on 21.08.2006 statement was given under wrong impression inasmuch as some other appeal was dismissed. He submitted that in the present case appeal has not been dismissed for non-compliance of the impugned order and is still pending. On his statement, Court proceeds to decide the present writ petition with the consent of counsel for both the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the condition of notification no.30/97-Custom, dated 01.04.1997 could not be fulfilled and the petitioner could not export the manufactured goods within eighteen months, inasmuch as the export order was cancelled. He submitted that the petitioner has moved an application for the extension of further time but without disposing of the said application show cause notice was issued for the demand of Rs.35,41,566/- towards custom duty and for Rs. 3.50 lacs towards penalty. He further submitted that even demand has been confirmed without disposing of the application for extension of time. He submitted that the Commissioner had power to extend the period to comply with the conditions of the notification and if time would have been extended, petitioner would have fulfilled the condition of the notificatioin. He submitted that the petitioner is running in a great financial hardship and is not in a position to deposit the amount. In case, if the petitioner may be compelled to deposit the entire amount, petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and its business will be substantially effected. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.
Having regard to the facts and circusmtances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is still pending since 2001, Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merit provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.20 lacs in cash within a period of two months and furnishes bank guarautee for the balance amount within same period. On the deposit of the amount and furnishing of bank guarantee, petitioner may report to the Tribunal and thereafter, Tribunal may dispose of the appeal within another period of two months.
With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.