PRESTIGE METALS P LTD Vs. CEGAT NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions involve similar question of law and were, therefore, heard as connected matters.

(2.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by dismissal of their appeals by CEGAT, mainly on the ground of non-compliance of the provision of Section 35f regarding deposit of the duty demanded and the penalty levied.

(3.) IT is significant to note that petitioners' applications filed under the proviso to Section 35f praying for dispensing with pre-deposit of the dues and the penalty were dismissed by the concerning Appellate Authorities. In the matter giving rise to Writ Petition No. 783/2000, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition before the main seat, Jabalpur, while in the matter giving rise to W. P. No. 583/2000, the petition was filed before this Bench. Learned Single Judge at Jabalpur passed an interim order dated 7-5-99 that "if within a period of three weeks from today the petitioner deposits 1/4th of the amount of duty, the appeal filed by the petitioner shall not be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions relating to deposit". The Court further directed that non-compliance shall lead to automatic dismissal of the petition. The petitioners, it appears, did not comply with the aforesaid order of the High Court and their petition thus stood dismissed under the pre-emptory order of the Court, The Commissioner (Appeals) passed order on 17-6-99 dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the provision of Section 35f without going into the merits of the matter. The petitioners also approached the Supreme Court in SLP against the aforesaid order dated 7-5-1999 of this Court. The SLP was also dismissed. However, it was directed that on petitioners' depositing l/4th of the amount of duty within four weeks, the appeal shall be restored and heard on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals ). No such deposit, however, was made by the petitioners. Instead they went in Second Appeal before the CEGAT and again prayed for dispensing with the requirement of the pre-deposit under Section 35f. It is curious to note that none appeared for the petitioners before the CEGAT to press their appeal or the application. The CEGAT by its order dated 7-12-1999 dismissed the application as also the appeal.