Allahabad High Court
Vikram Cement Pvt. Ltd. vs Cegat on 20 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: 2003(89)ECC754
ORDER M.C. Agarwal, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges inter alia the order dated 23.4.1996 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, by which it dismissed the petitioner's appeal for non-compliance of the conditions of pre-deposit under Section 35F and the order dated 22.8.1996 by which the Tribunal dismissed the restoration application.
2. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the levy of excise duty and penalty before the said Tribunal and moved an application under the proviso to Section 35F waiver of the condition of pre-deposit. The Tribunal by order dated 14.3.1996 granted partial relief to the petitioner directing it to deposit the demand of excise duty and dispensed with the deposit of the penalty. It ordered the case to come up on 22.4.1996 for ascertaining compliance, meaning thereby it allowed the petitioner more than a month's time to deposit the amount. In the meantime the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the said order. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 8.5.1996 with the observation that the petitioner may file a fresh application before the Tribunal but before that the matter was taken up before the Tribunal on 28.4.1996 in the presence of the petitioner's counsel. He could not inform the Tribunal about the compliance of the Tribunal's earlier order and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the pre-condition of deposit under Section 35F. Thus, the petitioner did not apprise the Tribunal that a writ petition was pending in the High Court nor did it apprise this Court that its appeal had already been dismissed on 23.4.1996.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for restoration before the Tribunal stating merely that the counsel at New Delhi did not know the fact of writ petition having been filed in the Allahabad High Court.
4. I have heard Shri D.V. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. The Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner appeal for non-compliance of the conditions of pre-deposit of dues under Section 35F is an order under Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act against which a reference to the High Court could be sought under Section 35G of the Act. Even otherwise, in the circumstances of the case there is no reason to interfere with the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the order dismissing the restoration application is concerned the same also does not require any interference by this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.