Sh. Ram Prasad Vs. Cc, Amritsar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this application filed by the appellants seeks to restore the appeal to its original number. the appeal had been dismissed as per order dated 4.1.2001 for non-compliance with the provisions of section 129e of the customs act. on that day, the counsel for the appellants had submitted that the had no instructions as to whether they had complied with the tribunal's direction for pre-deposit of rs. 10,000/- in compliance with the provisions of section 129e. that, 1d. advocate sh.bipin garg submits that, in fact, he had received proof of deposit of the amount of rs. 10,000/-, from his clients on the same day but some time after close of the bench sitting hors. he has brought on record a copy of the challan evidencing the deposit of the amount on 30.12.2000, along with the present application. ld jdb sh. k. panchatcharam is satisfied about the deposit.2. it appears that the deposit was made a little beyond the stipulated time of six weeks. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. i, therefore, find that there is a genuine case for restoration of the appeal to its original number and for posting the same for regula hearing. i do accordingly and post the case to 11.5.2001.

Judgment:
1. This application filed by the appellants seeks to restore the appeal to its original number. The appeal had been dismissed as per Order dated 4.1.2001 for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act. On that day, the Counsel for the appellants had submitted that the had no instructions as to whether they had complied with the Tribunal's direction for pre-deposit of Rs. 10,000/- in compliance with the provisions of Section 129E. That, 1d. Advocate Sh.

Bipin Garg submits that, in fact, he had received proof of deposit of the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, from his clients on the same day but some time after close of the bench sitting hors. He has brought on record a copy of the challan evidencing the deposit of the amount on 30.12.2000, along with the present application. Ld JDB Sh. K. Panchatcharam is satisfied about the deposit.

2. It appears that the deposit was made a little beyond the stipulated time of six weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. I, therefore, find that there is a genuine case for restoration of the appeal to its original number and for posting the same for regula hearing. I do accordingly and post the case to 11.5.2001.