TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner applied for grant of waiver to deposit the disputed amount of duty as a condition for hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal by order dated 14th December 1998 directed the petitioner to deposit rupees one lac as against the demanded duty on or before 31st January 1999. Subject to compliance the balance amount was dispensed with and recovery proceedings were stayed during the pendency of appeal. The petitioner failed to deposit the aforesaid amount of rupees one lac on or before 31st January 1999. The Tribunal by order dated 16-2-1999 dismissed the petitioner's appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. It appears that the petitioner had also filed another appeal raising the same contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal documents i.e. the order showing that the amount which became refundable was adjusted towards the amount which ought to have been deposited in pursuance to the stay order dated 14-12-1998. Aggrieved against this very order present writ petition has been filed. 5. Heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in any view of the matter the position as stand today and not even disputed in the counter affidavit the department has recovered a sum of rupees one lac by way of adjustment, the Tribunal should hear and decide the appeal on merits. According to him condition of Section 35F of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... workable and the interpretation thereof by a Court should be to secure that object unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable [See Whitney v. IRC, AC at Page 52 referred to in CIT v. S. Teja Singh (AIR 1959 SC 352) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT AIR 1963 SC 1062]. 10. The Courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used [See Salmon v. Duncombe AC at Page 634, Curtis v. Stovin, 60 LT-772 (CA) referred to in S. Teja Singh case]. 11. If the choice is between two interpretations the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation. Court should avoid a construction which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given with one hand what it took away with the other. 15. The provisions of one section of the statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them. Thus a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a "useless lumber" or "dead letter" is not a harmonised construction. To harmonise is not to destroy. 16. The petitioner did apply for grant of waiver of the condition to deposit the amount. The petitioner obtained conditional order from the Tribunal. The petitioner has failed to comply with the said conditions of the Tribunal. Now after a lapse of period of more than two years it is not open to the petitioner to urge that since the demand has been recovered, the appeal shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
