High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Century Laminating Co. v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT TAX No. 1133 of 2007  RD-AH 14359 (22 August 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1133 of 2007
1. M/s Century Laminating Co.
Village Acheja (Delhi-Hapur Road), Hapur,
District Ghaziabad, through Authorised
Signatory Sri Yogendra Verma
1. Union of India through Secretary Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi.
2. Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Meerut- II.
3. Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-II.
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. A.P. Mathur
Counsel for the respondents: Dr. Ashok Nigam
(Addl. Solicitor General of India)
Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale,CJ
Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J
Date: August 22, 2007
Oral Judgement (Per: H.L. Gokhale,CJ)
1. Heard Mr. Mathur in support of this appeal. Dr. Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India appears for the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein is manufacturing paper based decorative laminated sheets. The petitioner was proceeded under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.6,24,798 and also imposed the penalty. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). During the pendency of that appeal, he filed a writ petition in this Court bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1342 of 2006, which was filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26.5.2006, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the petitioner to deposit this entire amount of Rs. 6,24,798/-. This writ petition was filed on 22.8.2006 and remained pending in this Court.
3. In the meanwhile the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 13.9.2006 on the ground of non deposit.
4. It appears that this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge proceeded on the footing that the appeal is surviving and directed the petitioner to deposit sum of Rs. 4 lacs within a period of 15 days. The Court further directed that if amount is so deposited, the appeal should be decided expeditiously without noting that the appeal has been dismissed in the meanwhile.
5. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that there was a communication gap between the petitioner and himself since he was appearing for the petitioner in the earlier matter. It is however clear that this amount of Rs. 4 lacs has been deposited on 17th November, 2006.
6. Now this present petition has been filed to challenge this order of 13th November, 2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner for non deposit.
7. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court should take a lenient view and not go by the technicality.
8. Mr. Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India leaves it to the Court to pass an appropriate order.
9. In the circumstances, having noted that the petitioner has deposited this amount of Rs. 4 lacs in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge earlier, we set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 13th September, 2006, revive the appeal filed by the petitioner to the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the Commissioner to hear and decide the same on merits. Petition stands disposed of.
RK/ (Chief Justice)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.