LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-90

YAGNESHWARAN RAMASWAMY IYER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On August 21, 2013
Yagneshwaran Ramaswamy Iyer Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Learned counsel Mr. Hriday Buch waives service of notice of rule for respondents No. 2 and 3 and the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. Short question of limitation that arises in this petition is whether the order of revisional authority rejecting the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner without taking into consideration the period spent in pursuing the remedy before this Court, can be sustained?

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the purpose of, deciding this petition are as follows: -

(3.) ORDER -in -Original came to be passed on 12 -1 -2007 whereby the petitioner was visited with penalty of Rs. 20,000/ -. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 12 -3 -2008 directed the petitioner to make pre -deposit of the entire amount. An application for modification preferred by the petitioner also was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 27 -3 -2008. Such order came to be challenged before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), which decided the matter on merits. As it was submitted before the Tribunal that the petitioner could not afford the amount of pre -deposit, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by making observations on merits. Therefore, the petition came to be filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 13064 of 2008 requesting this Court to restore the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who had not decided the case on merits. This Court directed the petitioner to make a pre -deposit of a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - on or before 14 -11 -2008 and on such deposit the appeal preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) would stand restored to file. It further directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the said appeal on merits without being influenced by any observations made by the Tribunal in its order dated 16 -7 -2008 [2009 (242) E.L.T. 439 (Tri. -Ahmd.)]. This Court vide its order dated 22 -10 -2008, thus had restored the appeal, which was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) as the amount of pre -deposit was already paid by the petitioner.