VENKYS INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in respect of a product described as Lutavit. The Commissioner (Appeals) by an interim order was pleased to direct deposit of 50% of differential duty demanded. That was the subject matter a petition preferred before this Court. Notice was issued to the respondents. During the pendency of this petition, Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 11-9-2007 was pleased to dismiss the appeal on the ground of failure by the petitioner herein to pre-deposit the amount as directed. The Commissioner (Appeals) is Respondent No.3 in this petition. Appearance was put up on his behalf. In such matters, surely an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner either to approach this Court for a stay or other appropriate relief without dismissing the appeal. We must remind the appellate authorities that in such matters, no doubt as there was no stay, they could have proceeded to pass orders, but before passing such an order dismissing an appeal, an opportunity could have been given to the petitioner to move this Court to seek appropriate relief. The object should be not to increase litigation but as far as possible to avoid more litigation.

(3.) In the instant case, the very product in issue was the subject matter of a Writ Petition filed before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 630 of 1995. One Mr. R.D. More, Assistant Commissioner had filed an affidavit before this Court on 13-10-2003, wherein it was set out as under :