Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/726/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 726 of 2008
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2608 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8319 of 2008
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 726 of 2008
=============================================
GUJARAT
APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 3 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MR
PARESH M DAVE for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR RM CHHAYA for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
MR CZ SANKHLA for Respondent(s) :
4,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 12/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
The
adjudicating authority issued a show cause notice on the appellant
under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development &
Regulation) Act, 1992 (for short the Act ) asking the appellant
to refund the balance amount of terminal excise duty, to which the
appellant filed reply.
After
getting the clarification from the office of Indian Audit &
Accounts Department, Mumbai and Director General of Foreign Trade,
New Delhi, the authority issued the impugned order on 8th
January, 2008 for refund of terminal excise duty of Rs.1,12,19,487/-,
which stipulates that, on failure, action shall be taken as per the
Act. Having challenged, learned Single Judge refused to entertain
the writ petition there being an alternative remedy of appeal under
Section 15 of the Act.
Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant tried to convince that
no final decision has been taken on the show cause notice and the
reply filed by the appellant. But, since appeal can be preferred
under Section 15 of the Act by any aggrieved person against any
decision taken by the adjudicating authority, learned counsel for the
appellant sought permission to withdraw this appeal so as to enable
the appellant to prefer an appeal and requested to direct the
appellate authority to entertain the appeal on merit by condoning the
delay, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant was
pursuing the matter before this Court and matter is pending since
long.
Mr.
R.M. Chhaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
Nos.1 to 3 submits that if the appellant moves an appeal before the
appellate authority within a reasonable time, the Court may direct to
decide the same on merits.
Having
heard learned counsel for the parties, we allow the appellant to
prefer an appeal against the impugned order dated 8th
January, 2008 under Section 15 of the Act, 1992. If such appeal
along with application for condonation of delay is preferred by the
appellant within three weeks, the appellate authority will condone
the delay and entertain and decide the appeal on merits after notice
to the parties. So far as interim relief is concerned, the appellant
is also given opportunity to file an application for interim relief
before the appellate authority within the same period of three weeks
and the appellate authority shall decide the question of grant of
interim relief, taking into consideration the interim order passed by
this Court.
This
appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and
direction. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently,
Civil Application for stay stands disposed of.
[S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,
C.J.]
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
*pvv
Top