TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were called upon to pre-deposit the entire amount in terms of the impugned order as the Tribunal felt that the appellants did not have a prima facie good case on merits and that there were no infirmity in the order of the learned lower authority. 2. The appellants approached the Hon ble High Court of Madras and the Hon ble High Court by their order have directed as under : 2. The petitioner in these writ petitions had filed five appeals before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) against the assessment orders passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kamarapalayam Range, Kamarapalyam. Out of the five appeals, one appeal alone was in time and the same was allowed on 9-9-1996, in Appeal No. 615 of 1996. The othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td.). Therefore, in such a situation to ask the petitioner to pre-deposit the entire duty demanded by the Original Authority is totally improper and unconscionable. Accordingly, I set aside the order of the CEGAT in Appeal Nos. 1415 and 1416 of 1996 and remit the matter back to the CEGAT for consideration of the appeal on merits, without insisting on pre-deposit, W.P. Nos. 18901 and 18902 of 1996 are accordingly ordered. No costs. 3. The appellants are, therefore, now before us for decision on merits. 4. Arguing on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants Shri C. Natarajan on the previous day of hearing had urged that the order passed by the original authority i.e. the assessment order of RT 12 Returns u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-2-1996 and, thereafter, they had been talking to the authorities regarding the status of the order and thereafter they followed it up with a letter dated 15-5-1996 asking for an appealable order. He fully concedes that the earlier discussions, if any, the appellant had with the authorities are not referred to in this letter and he has no evidence about any dialogue the appellant had with the authorities in regard to the assessment memorandum as was received by them on finalisation of the RT 12 Returns. He has pleaded that the appellants were actuated by bona fides in not filing the appeal within the period of 3 months and once they come to know by the reply of the authorities which was received by them on 17-5-1996 as mentioned above, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, approached the authorities on 16-5-1996 seeking an appealable order. He has pleaded, in this background the delay which occured should be taken to be not on account of negligence but on account of the bona fide belief on the part of the appellants as to the legal recourse they could have had in law. He has pleaded that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji Others v. Collector land acquisition reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 has laid the law as to the approach that should inform the authorities in the matter of condonation of delay. He has pleaded, as pointed out by the Hon ble Supreme Court the appellants had nothing to gain by the delay and in the interest of the cause of justice, as in that case the delay should be co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as set out in the statute or as laid down by the higher Courts. But that does not by itself make the order passed by him any the less a statutory order. Such an order having been passed, there should have been no doubt in the mind of the appellants that in terms of the rules, that they were required either to make good the deficiency or to have recourse to the statutory remedy against the order that had been passed. The appellants, however chose to wait out. The plea taken is that they had been in touch with the authorities during this period under question. The dialogue going on was not brought on record and in any case there is no evidence in this regard. There is nothing to say that the appellants had been misled into the belief that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed limitation to expire without the appeal being filed and when the sufficient cause could not be established within this period of limitation, their lordships held that such causes are not sufficient to condone the delay. On the same analogy the letter dated 15-5-1996 was written by them after the period of limitation was over and no cause within the period of limitation is established by the appellants in this case. In this view of the matter, following the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision, we are of the view that no sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. 12. The learned Advocate also relied on the decision of M/s. Kosal Metal and stated there was a bona fide belief of the appellants that before the RT 12 Returns was finalis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
