PUSHPA SILK MILLS PVT LTD Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise Commissioner, Jaipur along with an application for stay before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT for short) and claimed total waiver of pre -deposit for hearing of the appeal. However, the learned Member of the Appellate Tribunal passed on order on 27 -2 -2002 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 60 lakhs as pre -deposit for hearing of the appeal. The petitioner moved an application for modification of this order before the Appellate Tribunal but the same was also dismissed and a peremptory order was passed on 18 -4 -2002 directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount on or before 18 -6 -2002. The petitioner challenged this order before this Court by filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 35333/2002 which was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 35 lacs instead of Rs. 60 lacs within six weeks and it was further ordered that if the said amount is deposited, the appeal shall be heard by the Tribunal on merits. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to deposit this amount even within this period which was granted by the Division Bench of this Court and the period of six weeks also expired. This application for modification has now been filed relying upon the order of the Supreme Court delivered in the name of Pushpa Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11040/2003], decided on 8 -8 -2003 [2004 (165) E.L.T. A122 (S.C.)], who is petitioner in this application also, therein the petitioner had challenged the order of pre -deposit before the Tribunal and for hearing the case on merit. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court although were pleased to dismiss the petition for special leave to appeal, a liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for extension of time to make the deposit and it was further ordered that in case such deposit is made in accordance with law, the order passed earlier by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal shall stand set aside meaning thereby that the appeal was to be restored to be heard on merit. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that relying on this order similar relief should be granted to the petitioner in this matter too and the amount of Rs. 35 lacs which was to be paid by the petitioner within six weeks from 29 -7 -2002 should be extended so that the appeal can be heard on merit. It is further pointed out that the petitioner on account of financial crisis had not de posited this amount within the specified time granted by the High Court earlier on 29 -7 -2002.

(2.) HAVING heard the Counsel for the petitioner we deem it appropriate in the light of the order of the Supreme Court to grant liberty to the applicant to approach the Tribunal (CEGAT) for extension of time to deposit Rs. 35 lacs before the appeal is restored to be heard on merit.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this application for modification is allowed for modification and disposed of.