Skip to content


Orient Syntex Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Excise

Court

Mumbai High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 3180 of 1989

Judge

Reported in

1990(47)ELT321(Bom)

Appellant

Orient Syntex Ltd.

Respondent

Assistant Collector of C. Ex.

Excerpt:


.....the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it si open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that the accused does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is frame d at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. it is not a requirement und4r section 3 of the atrocities act that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint. in other words, if there is no..........matter, the appeal before the tribunal would no longer survive. on the question of stay also i have heard counsel on either side. considering the facts and circumstances, i am inclined to direct deposit of rs. 1,00,000/- and bank guarantee for the remaining rs. 1,07,000/- as per directions in the final order below.5. hence order :(a) the petition is allowed. the impugned order, exhibit e, of the collector of central excise and customs (appeals), bombay as also the order dated 13th september, 1989, exhibit f, of the tribunal are both set aside and the petitioners' appeal before the collector of central excise and customs (appeals), bombay, is restored to file before him, and delay therein stands condoned. (b) if the petitioners' deposit with the assistant collector of central excise, amravati, rs. 1,00,000/- and furnish in his favour bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in the sum of rs. 1,07,000/- by 15th february, 1990, the collector of central excise and customs (appeals), bombay, will then hear the petitioners' aforesaid appeal on merits and in accordance with law. it is made clear that there will be no further extension of this time to deposit and to furnish bank.....

Judgment:


1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.

2. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs on the ground of delay and without going into the merits. Against the Collector's order the petitioners preferred appeal to the Tribunal i.e. CEGAT. The Tribunal declined stay of the order of deposit of the disputed amount of Rs. 2,07,000/-.

3. I have heard Counsel on either side. I have also through the order of the Collector as also that of the Tribunal. There is no dispute that there was delay in filing the appeal before the Collector. This, however, is not a case where the Collector should have dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and without going into the merits. The Collector could as well have put the petitioners on terms on the question of condonation of delay. In matters of delay, there is normally some sort of negligence on the part of the litigant but payment of costs to the other side, by and large, meets the ends of justice, while at the same time providing the appellant an opportunity of having his appeal heard on merits and in accordance with law. I am inclined to follow the said course.

4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the appeal before the Tribunal would no longer survive. On the question of stay also I have heard Counsel on either side. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to direct deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and bank guarantee for the remaining Rs. 1,07,000/- as per directions in the final order below.

5. Hence Order :

(a) The petition is allowed. The impugned order, Exhibit E, of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Bombay as also the order dated 13th September, 1989, Exhibit F, of the Tribunal are both set aside and the petitioners' appeal before the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Bombay, is restored to file before him, and delay therein stands condoned.

(b) If the petitioners' deposit with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Amravati, Rs. 1,00,000/- and furnish in his favour bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in the sum of Rs. 1,07,000/- by 15th February, 1990, the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Bombay, will then hear the petitioners' aforesaid appeal on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that there will be no further extension of this time to deposit and to furnish bank guarantee.

(c) In the event, however, of the petitioners' not complying with the aforesaid condition of deposit and bank guarantee latest by 15th February 1990, the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Bombay, shall then dismiss the petitioners' appeal.

(d) In view of the above order and directions, the petitioners' pending appeal before the Tribunal i.e. CEGAT should be disposed of by the Tribunal without any orders.

(e) Rule is made absolute in terms aforesaid but, in the circumstances, the petitioners are directed to pay to the respondents costs of this petition quantified at Rs. 500/-.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //