M/S. Hickoson and Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

2.	On	18	th	January	, 2	002 the Commissioner	of	Customs
(Adjudic	ation)	pas	sed	an	or	der in original p	ursuant	to
the	show	cause		notice	issu	ed to them. By	the	said
order,	the	petitioner	s	were	he	ld liable to pay	an	amount
of	Rs.12,7	2,582/-	as	dem	anded	in the show	cause	notice
along	with	int	erest	at	the	rate of 24% per	annum	from
the	date	of	clea	rance	of	the goods until the	duty	was
paid.		The	Com	mission	er	of Customs also	imposed	penalty

¶13

of Rs.5,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act,

¶14

¶15

2

¶16

3.	The	copy of	the	order	dated		18th	Jan	uary,	2002	was
admittedly		received	by	the	petitio	ner	on		21st		January,
2002.	How	ever, the		appeal	came	to	be		filed	by	the
petitioners		on 26th	De	cember,	2003		befor	e	the		Customs,
Excise	and	Servic	e	Tax	Appellat	e	Tribu	nal,	W	est	Zonal
Bench,	Mumb	ai.	As	the	appeal	was	bar	red	by	time,	the
petitioners	m	ade an		appl	ication		for		cond	onation	of
delay.	The	Tribunal	by	its	order		dated		12th	April,	2004

¶17

rejected the application for condonation of delay and

¶18

consequently dismissed the appeal.

¶19

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the

¶20

present writ petition.

¶21

5.	That	the	appeal	preferred	by	the	petiti	oners	before
the	Tribunal	suffered	from	delay of	610	days	is	not	in
dispute.		In	their	application,	the	petiti	oners	set	out

¶22

the following facts and circumstances that led to the

¶23

filing of the appeal belatedly:

¶24

(a)	The	impug	ned show	cause notice	was
	issued	in	the month	of January,	1999.
	In the	the closure	month of May, of the	1998, pursuant Applicants’ plant	to s at
	Mumbai hearing and Applicant industrial	Fina company Compani	and Boisar (in before the ncial Reconstruc was declared as a sick es Act (SICA).	March 1998) Board for tion (BIFR),	and a Industrial the
(b)	At	that	time, the	total number	of
	employee	s	in the Appli	cant company	was
	31,	of	which 18 w	ere clerical	staff.
	The	only	officer who	was conversant	with

¶25

3

¶26

	the	facts of the issue in dispute	and
	the Act, 1962 w Commercia	relevant provisions of the as one Mr.Vaidya, who was the l Officer in the Company.	Customs
(c)	The	said Mr.Vaidya subsequently left	the
	services	of the company on or about	30th
	November,	1998. Thereafter none of	the
	officers	in the company was in	a
	position	to take over the duties	of
	Mr.Vaidya, to take Mr.	nor was any person employed Vaidya’s place.
(d)	It	is submitted that as the A	pplicants
	had	stopped paying salaries and	wages
	from	march, 1998 onwards, none of	the
	officers/staf regular basi till August,	f were attending work on s. This situation continued 2002.	a
(e)	Since	July, 2002 the remaining	officers
	of	the company were only engaged in	the
	preparation	of the Balance Sheets of	the
	company	for the earlier years,	as
	directed	by the BIFR. Further	pursuant
	to	, the hearing before the BIFR held	on
	19th	April, 2001, the Applicants	were
	directed	to prepare and file	a
	provisional	Balance Sheet for the	year
	ended roosal	March, 2001 and prepare a for rehabilitation within	modified a
	pp period	of our weeks. As a	result
	thereof,	each and every officer to	the
	company the above onwards.	(six in all) was only engaged activity from that date	in
(f)	As a	result of the BIFR proceedings,	the
	Applicants	were functioning with	a
	skeletal	staff, who were not even	been
	paid any re rendered by	muneration for the services them.
(g)	As	a result of the BIFR proceedings	and
	the	lack of adequate staff,	the
	documents were in com	and file of the Applicants plete disarray.
(h)	In te	rms of the Order dated	19th
	September,	2002 passed by the BIFR,	the
	new	management viz., The Patel	Group
	took	charge of the Applicant company	in
	September,	2002. At that time, the	new

(c)

(h)

4

	management was fact that the impugned order ha passed in the month of January,	completely unaware of the d been 2002.
(i)	It was only 2003 that the recruitment of process contin In the	in the month of May/June, new management commenced new employees. This ued till September, 2003. circumstances, despite receiving
	the first demand	notice dated 24th July,
	2003, the new make any inquiries and take any in the matter.	management was unable to action

¶31

It is only when	the new	management
received the 2nd	Notice	dated 1st
December, 2003, that it was in a
position the materials utilized by them discharging the export obligation under
the said Licence. Hence, the delay."

¶32

6. The	facts preceding the receipt	of th	e copy	of the
order dated	18th January, 2002 on	21st	January,	2002
are neither	material nor relevant. It	is	a fact	that
the copy	of the order dated 18th	January,	2002	was
received by	the first petitioner	-company	on	21st
January, 2002	. With whatever staf	f that	the	first
petitioner h	ad, it ought to have	acted	diligently	in
challenging th	e said order, if it		was	aggrieved
thereby.	Rather, it appears that in	the	garb of	the
fact that th	e BIFR proceedings were	going	on, the	first
petitioner	slept over the matter for	mo	nths	together.
As a	matter of fact, the Department	served	a	demand
notice upon	the first petitioner on	24th	July,	2003.
Even by	that time, new management	had	taken place	, but
nothing was	done. The new manageme	nt als	o slept	over
the matter.	At least on receipt of	the	demand	notice

¶33

5

¶34

dated	24th July, 2003, consequ	ent	upon the order	passed
on	18th January, 2002, the ne	w	management ought to	have
acted	swiftly. But they	also	remained inactive	for
months	together. Then seco	nd	demand notice was	served
on	1st December, 2003.	It	appears that thereafter	the
steps	were taken by the	petit	ioners in filing	the
appeal.	We are afraid, the		facts and circumstances	set
out	in the application do no	t	make out sufficient	cause
for	condonation of long dela	y	of 610 days.	The
Tribunal	cannot be said to	have	committed any error	in

¶35

rejecting the application for condonation of delay and

¶36

thereby dismissing the appeal.

¶37

We find no justifiable ground to interfere with the

¶38

order of the Tribunal.

¶39

Writ petition is dismissed in limine.

¶40

(R.M. LODHA,J.)

¶41

(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)

M/S. Hickoson and Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Hickoson and Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jawahar P. Kanungo Vs Union of India and Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and Anr.

Comushop Techno (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S. Business India Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 12(1) and 3 Ors.

m/s shubhada polymers products p.ltd Vs the union of india and Anr.

M/S.Sudhir Diamonds Vs Union of India and Anr.

Vinay Saigal Vs the Union of India and Ors.