Allowed

Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital and Regional Cancer Centre, v. the Commissioner of Customs

Bombay HC17 Sept 2012CUAPP/84/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the CESTAT's order requiring a further Rs.40 lakhs deposit by a charitable cancer hospital for restoring a dismissed appeal, holding it justified to condone the delay without further deposit.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order of the CESTAT dated 1-5-2012 and the order dated 9-1-2004; restored the appeal to the file of CESTAT.

Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital and Regional Cancer Centre, Vs the Commissioner of Customs — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

cuappl-67-12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CUSTOMS APPEAL(LOD) NO.67 OF 2012

¶5

Rashtra Sahi Tukdoji Cancer Hospital & Regional Cancer Centre

¶6

..Appellant.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The Commissioner of Customs ..Respondent.

¶9

Mr. V. Sridharan, senior Advocate i/b. PDS Legal for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the respondent.

¶11

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.D. DHANUKA, JJ. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

Whether the CESTAT is justified in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.40 lakhs in addition to the amount of Rs.35 lakhs already deposited for restoring the appeal which was dismissed on 9^th January, 2004, is the question raised in this appeal.

¶14

2. The appeal is admitted on the above question and taken

¶15

up for final hearing by consent of parties.

1/3

sas

cuappl-67-12

The appellant is a charitable institution and runs a charitable cancer hospital. Challenging the order in original dated 9^th August, 2002 confirming the duty demand of Rs.78 lakhs, the assessee had filed an appeal before the CESTAT and by an order dated 19^th May, 2003, the CESTAT had directed the appellant to deposit Rs.30 lakhs within the time stipulated therein. Since the said amount was not deposited, the Tribunal by its order dated 9^th January, 2004 dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. The Writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 9^th January, 2004 was dismissed by this Court on 12^th October, 2006.

¶20

Thereafter, during the period from the year 2006 till 1^st December, 2010, the assessee by various instalments deposited in all Rs.35 lakhs and by its application dated 9^th December, 2010 applied for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed on 9^th January, 2004.

¶21

By the impugned order dated 1^st May, 2012 the Tribunal has directed the appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs.40 lakhs for restoring of the appeal dismissed on 9^th January, 2004.

¶22

No doubt, there is inordinate delay on the part of the

2/3

sas

cuappl-67-12

appellant in complying with the pre-deposit order passed by the Tribunal on 19^th May, 2003. However, looking to the facts that the assessee is a charitable institution running a charitable cancer hospital, it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice to condone the delay in depositing the amount of pre-deposit and restore the appeal without any further deposit. Accordingly, the impugned order of the CESTAT dated 1^st May, 2012 as also the order dated 9^th January, 2004 are quashed and set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of CESTAT. The Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal on merits and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶27

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶28

(R.D. DHANUKA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

¶29

3/3

¶30

sas

Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital and Regional Cancer Centre, v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital and Regional Cancer Centre, v. the Commissioner of Customs

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

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ajitkumar M. Shah Vs the Appellate for Foreign Exchange

M/S. Hathibhai Bulakidas Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gurudas Harishchandra Nagarkar Vs the High Power Committee and 5 Ors.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Nasik Vs M/S Ravi Enterprises and Anr.

M/S. Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise