Perfect Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 12 May, 2000
Ld. DR submitted that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dollar Detergents (P) Ltd. v. CEGAT, New Delhi reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 30 held that the Tribunal had partially waived the conditions and directed the petitioner to deposit only Rs. 75,000/-; that the petitioner prolonged the matter through writ petition which was ultimately dismissed. After the dismissal of writ petition the Tribunal's order became conclusive and there was no option for petitioner but to deposit the amount as directed by the Tribunal; that admittedly, it did not do so inspite of long time having elapsed and Tribunal having adjourned the matter more than once even after the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court. The Tribunal was therefore, left with no option but to dismiss the appeal because Section 35F barred entertaining the appeal unless the deposit was made. The Tribunal's order, therefore, is only in accordance with law and no case of interference under Article 226 is made out. Ld. DR submitted that in the case of Navin Chander Chhotelal relied upon by the applicants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that although Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not expressly provide for rejection of the appeal for non-deposit of duty or penalty yet it makes it obligatory on an appellant to deposit the duty or penalty pending the appeal failing which, the appellate authority is fully competent to reject the appeal for non-compliance of the provision of Section 129(1) ibid. He submits that this decision of the Apex Court is applicable to the facts of the present case in-as-much as Section 35F of the Central Excise Act use similar words as those used in Section 129(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. He submitted that in view of this ruling of the Apex Court, the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court is not applicable.