HAMERLAL JAIN Vs. COMMR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has declined to restore the petitioner's appeal dismissed by it for non-prosecution. Aggrieved the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the said order in this petition.

(2.) The petitioner was, during the relevant period, engaged in manufacture of brass ingots from out of brass dross imported from outside the country or purchased from the indigenous market. Pursuant to a show cause notice served upon the petitioner, the adjudicating authority determined an amount of Rs.12,80,613/- towards basic duty and a sum of Rs.2,989.97 towards special duty as payable by the petitioner. A penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was also at the same time levied upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Bombay who passed an order on 29th November, 1990 directing the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within the time stipulated by it failing which the appeal filed by the petitioner was liable to be rejected. Pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty and penalty was, on that condition, waived.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that he had, pursuant to the direction aforementioned, deposited a sum of Rs.2 lacs in terms of a challan, a copy whereof has been produced as Annexure P-2 to the petition. His further case is that a bank guarantee for the requisite amount was also obtained and furnished to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Bombay within the time stipulated by the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, he had informed his consultant about the payment of the amount of duty and the furnishing of the bank guarantee and was under the impression that the consultant would faithfully report the same to the Registry of the Tribunal. Unfortunately, however, the consultant does not appear to have done the needful till the time of his death some time in the year 2001. In the meantime, the petitioner received an intimation from the Tribunal pointing out that the appeal stood transferred to the CESTAT at Delhi. The manufacturing activity was also stopped by the petitioner who claims to have informed the Registry of the CESTAT at Delhi about the change of his address in terms of a communication dated 10th August, 1996.