RAM KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the prayer is to restore the appeal which was dismissed on 2 -7 -2001 on the ground of non -compliance with the stay order passed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.

(2.) By stay order dated 4 -5 -2001, this Bench had directed the applicants to pre -deposit an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on or before 30 -6 -2001 under Section 35F ibid. The party did not, or could not, make the pre -deposit within the stipulated time. Their subsequent application for reconsideration of the stay order was rejected on its merits. In the present application, it is stated that the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs has been deposited on 19 -7 -2002. The application is accompanied by a copy of the TR -6 challan evidencing the deposit. It is further stated in this application that the applicant could not raise the amount despite his best efforts. Ld. Counsel for the applicant prays for condonation of the delay and restoration of the appeal. Ld. DR opposes this application, pointing out that no reason for the delay has been stated by the applicant.

(3.) I have examined the records and the submissions. The last date for pre -deposit of the amount was 30 -6 -2001. The deposit has been made as late as on 19 -7 -2002, i.e. more than a year after the last date stipulated by the Tribunal. The present application submitted by the applicant's Counsel does not disclose the reasons for the delay, nor is it accompanied by any affidavit of the party stating the reasons. Ld. Counsel, in answer to queries raised in this behalf by the Bench, submits that such technical shortcomings are condonable in the wider interest of justice. Ld. counsel seeks to buttress his point by relying on Gujarat High Court's decision in S.T. Texturisers v. Union of India - [2002 (142) E.L.T. 308]. On a perusal of the High Court's judgment, I note that a similar delay of about 10 months was condoned by the High Court having regard to the valuable right of appeal of the assessee. Apparently, in that case also, the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the delay of deposit. However, in that case, the High Court was apparently considering an application of the assessee filed by themselves unlike in the present case in which the application is by the assessee's Advocate, not accompanied by any affidavit of the party. Nevertheless, taking into account the spirit behind the High Court's decision, I would follow suit. Accordingly, the present application is allowed after condoning the delay of deposit. The appeal is restored to its original number and posted for regular hearing to 3 -4 -2003.