TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (6) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted from outside the country or purchased from the indigenous market. Pursuant to a show cause notice served upon the petitioner, the adjudicating authority determined an amount of Rs.12,80,613/- towards basic duty and a sum of Rs.2,989.97 towards special duty as payable by the petitioner. A penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was also at the same time levied upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Bombay who passed an order on 29^th November, 1990 directing the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within the time stipulated by it failing which the appeal filed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, letter dated 26^th August, 2003 from the Superintendent of Central Excise received by the petitioner on 2^nd September, 2003 called upon the petitioner to renew the bank guarantee as the same had expired. A copy of the said letter has also been enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure P-8 to the petition. The petitioner immediately renewed the bank guarantee up to 5^th September, 2005 and informed the Superintendent about the same in terms of a letter dated 8^th October, 2003. The petitioner alleges that when he inquired about the status of the appeal filed by him from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-IV, Division K-1, the Superintendent expressed ignorance about the same and directed the petitioner to contact the Divisional Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn by the said Court in terms of an order dated 20^th January, 2005. A reading of the said order would show that the petition was allowed to be withdrawn as the appeal was at the time of its dismissal pending before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and in the event of the same being restored, shall have to be heard by the Tribunal at Delhi. The petitioner was, therefore, given liberty to file an appropriate writ petition before this court. That is precisely how the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in this court. 7. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Prateek Kumar argued that the dismi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent on record showing service of such a notice. 8. There is, in our opinion, considerable merit in both these submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The documents placed on record amply prove that the order passed by the Tribunal regarding pre-deposit and furnishing of bank guarantee had been complied with by the petitioner within the time stipulated for the purpose. The Tribunal was not, therefore, correct in holding that there was non-compliance with the said directions. In any event, the departmental representative appearing before the Tribunal ought to have pointed out the true facts to the Tribunal to avoid injustice to the petitioner. So also the service of notice regarding hearing of the appeal does not appear to ....