Allowed

Sunil Shrinivas Bhattad, Propriter of M/S. Maruti Trading Co. v. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur

Bombay HC9 Apr 2019NMA/30/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted undertakings filed by four appellants seeking condonation of significant delay in complying with deposit conditions of a Tribunal order. The Court made the Notices of Motion absolute, extending time and suspending coercive action, treating agreed interest as costs.

What did the court decide?

The Notices of Motion were made absolute in respect of each applicant by condoning the delay and extending the time to deposit the amounts.

Sunil Shrinivas Bhattad, Propriter of M/S. Maruti Trading… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

30-19-NMA-901-C=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 30 OF 2019 IN

¶5

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2013

¶6

Sunil Shrinivas Bhattad ..Applicant In the matter of Sunil Shrinivas Bhattad .. Appellant v/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise Kolhapur .. Respondent

¶7

ALONG WITH

¶8

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 31 OF 2019 IN

¶9

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2013

¶10

Shree Venkateshwara Pan Masala Ind. Pvt. Ltd. ..Applicant In the matter of Shree Venkateshwara Pan Masala Ind. Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant v/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise Kolhapur .. Respondent

¶11

ALONG WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 32 OF 2019

¶12

¶13

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2013

¶14

Pravin Shrinivas Bhattad ..Applicant In the matter of Pravin Shrinivas Bhattad .. Appellant v/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise Kolhapur .. Respondent

1 of 7

30-19-NMA-901-C=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

ALONG WITH

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 33 OF 2019 IN

¶20

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2013

¶21

Rajendra Babulal Malu ..Applicant In the matter of Rajendra Babulal Malu .. Appellant v/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise Kolhapur .. Respondent

¶22

Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Mr. Deep Morabia, Mr. Zaid Ansari and Mr. Mangesh Kokare for the applicant / appellants

¶23

Mr. Pradeep Jetly a/w Mr. J.B. Mishra for the respondent

¶24

CORAM : A.S. OKA & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J.

¶25

DATED : 9^th APRIL, 2019

¶26

P.C.

¶27

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. The applicants are the appellants in Central Excise Appeals.

¶28

By judgment and order dated 21^st July, 2014, the appellants' appeals were dismissed by this Court. The appeals preferred before this Court by the applicants under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act

¶29

were directed against the common interim order dated 26^th April, 2013 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for

2 of 7

30-19-NMA-901-C=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

short “the Tribunal). By the said common interim order dated 26^th April, 2013, certain amounts were directed to be deposited by the applicants within the period of eight weeks as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeals by the Tribunal. While dismissing the appeals by the judgment and order dated 21^st July, 2014 of this Court, time to deposit the amounts as per the common impugned order of the Tribunal was extended by a period of four weeks. The judgment and order dated 21^st July, 2014 was challenged by the applicants by filing Special Leave Petitions. By order dated 24^th November, 2014, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. It appears that a review petition was filed before the Apex Court which was dismissed by the order dated 4^th February, 2016. Thereafter, a curative petition was filed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the same by the order dated 18^th February, 2016. According to the case made out in the affidavit-in-support, the order of this Court dated 21^st July, 2014 became operative only on dismissal of curative petition on 18^th February, 2016.

¶34

The prayers made in these Notices of Motion are identical. The prayers are essentially for extending the time granted by this Court under the order dated 21^st July, 2014 to comply with the conditions in

3 of 7

30-19-NMA-901-C=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

common interim order of the Tribunal by depositing the requisite amounts. As there is a delay in seeking such relief, there is a prayer for condonation of delay of 1535 days.

¶39

The Notices of Motion are strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent by contending that the judgment and order of this Court dated 21^st July, 2014 was always operative and, therefore, the contention that the order did not operate till 18^th February, 2018 is completely erroneous. His submission is that this Court showed leniency by extending time to make compliance and after a long lapse of time, now there is no reason to extend the time.

¶40

The applicants have tendered undertakings on oath which are taken on record in each Notices of Motion and marked “U-1” for identification. The applicants have deposited the amounts as per order dated 26^th April, 2013 as confirmed by this Court by order dated 21^st July, 2014. The applicants have given a clear undertaking (in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid undertakings) to pay the amount as directed to be paid within a period of four weeks along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% from 19^th August, 2014 till 11^th July, 2017 being the last date of payment having been deposited by them. The

4 of 7

30-19-NMA-901-C=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

contention of the applicants is that they have deposited the entire amount due and payable as per the order dated 21^st July, 2014 by various installments. The fact that the amounts are belatedly paid is not disputed by the respondent. To ensure that the Revenue is adequately compensated, the applicants have agreed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amounts which are due and payable under the common interim order from 19^th August, 2014 (the date on which time fixed under the order of this Court expired till the date of payment of the entire amount). The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants states that the first sentence in paragraph no.5 of the undertaking has been inadvertently incorporated and the same may be treated as deleted. He states that the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. will be actually paid and there is no question of furnishing bank guarantee for the said amount.

¶45

Considering the fact that the compliance with the undertaking will compensate the Revenue to a substantial extent for the delay, the notices of motion deserve to be made absolute.

¶46

Accordingly, we pass the following order:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(a) We accept the undertaking of the applicants incorporated in

5 of 7

30-19-NMA-901-C=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

paragraph 4 of the undertaking which is taken on record and marked “U-1”;

¶53

(b) In view of the undertaking, the Notices of Motion are made absolute by condoning the delay and by extending the time granted under order the dated 21^st July, 2014 till the respective dates, on which the entire amount due and payable as per the common interim order, was deposited by the applicants;

¶54

(c) In the event of failure of the applicants to abide by the undertaking, apart from the legal consequences which will follow, the Notices of Motion shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court;

¶55

(d) The Notices of Motion are disposed of in the above terms;

¶56

(e) For a period of 12 weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken by the Department to enable the applicants to comply with their undertakings;

¶57

(f) We make it clear that the amount of interest is agreed to be paid

6 of 7

30-19-NMA-901-C=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

by the applicants with a view to compensate the Revenue on account of

¶62

delay. In fact, the amount of interest is agreed to be paid by way of

¶63

costs. Therefore, it follows that the payment of interest will have no bearing on the main controversy on merits.

¶64

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶65

(A. S. OKA, J.)

¶66

7 of 7

Sunil Shrinivas Bhattad, Propriter of M/S. Maruti Trading Co. v. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Shrinivas Bhattad, Propriter of M/S. Maruti Trading Co. v. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Import, Mumbai

The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Mumbai East Vs Dhl Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Devji Bhaya Jethwa and Ors. Vs Shri. Nayan Chunlal Baraiya

John Wilson Education Society and 3 Ors. Vs the State Chief Information Commissioner and Anr.

Rajendra Babulal Malu, Managing Director of Shree Venkateshwara Pan Masala Ind. Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise

Mr. Rajan S/O. Suryakant Adsul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.