GOURANGA BANIK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), SHILLONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) SHRI N.K. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants states that in this case, the Original Order dated 19 -11 -05 was received by the two Appellants respectively on 12 -12 -05 and 30 -12 -05. They preferred a joint appeal on 17 -2 -06, which has been dismissed on 28 -4 -06 (issued on 26 -7 -06) by the lower Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the Appellants filed separate appeals on 23 -10 -06, but the Superintendent in the lower Appellate Authoritys Office has intimated the Appellants on 5 -12 -07 that their original joint appeal has been dismissed against which they are required to prefer appeals before the proper forum and unless that Order is set aside, their separate appeals cannot be entertained. Consequently, both the Appellants have come in appeal before the Tribunal along with the Applications for condonation of delay and Stay Petitions. The Stay Petitions were listed for hearing on 12 -6 -08. The Applications for condonation of delay were not listed. It was also wrongly indicated in the Stay Order which was passed on that date that the pre -deposit involved is only a nominal amount of Rs. 1500.00 and the Appellants were directed to pre -deposit the entire amount of penalty. This Order was passed ex parte as the Appellants were not represented. However, surprisingly, the learned D.R. who appeared that day did not point out that the penalties imposed were higher than that nor any application for modification of the Order has been filed by the concerned Commissioner. Shri N.K. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants today states that he does not have a copy of the Original Order because he has been engaged by the Appellants at a late stage, but he states that the amount of Rs. 1500.00 directed to be deposited has been deposited by the Appellants.

(3.) TAKING into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, since the joint appeal was filed on 17 -2 -06 within the prescribed time -limit and subsequently, separate appeals have been filed on 23 -10 -06 after coming to know that joint appeal is not allowed to be filed, I condone the delay in filing both the Appeals before the Tribunal, set aside the impugned Order dated 28 -4 -06 issued on 26 -7 -06 and direct the lower Appellate Authority to take into account the Appeal initially filed on 17 -2 -06 along with separate appeals filed on 23 -10 -06 as valid appeals, and decide the same on merit without insisting on any further pre -deposit. Both the Appellants shall be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing fresh Orders. Both the Appeals are allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)