2003 (5) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Appeals), Allahabad. Under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 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 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his amount to review the earlier order and secondly in absence of vital 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 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ell on Statutes (11th Edn. Page 221)]. 9. A statute is designed to be 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 ma....