JUDGMENT
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. This is an application by M/s. Hindustan Power Instruments (Pvt.) Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 74,144.94 paise.
2. At the outset Shri U Raja Ram, learned Department Representative pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Applicants on the ground of Appeal being barred. Shri N.K. Singh, learned Consultant on the other hand submitted that after receipt of the Order-in-Original confirming the demands, the Applicants had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 4691/03 in Delhi High Court; that the Delhi High Court vide order dated 28.7.2003 dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy; that the High Court also directed that if the petitioner prefers Appeal within 10 days from today, their application for condonation of delay shall be considered favourably by the Appellate Tribunal; that as the High Court’s order has been received by them on 6.8.2003, they had filed the Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 13.8.2003 which is within 10 days time provided by the High Court. The learned Consultant, further, submitted that as the High Court’s order was received by them only on 6.8.2003, they could not file the Appeal within 10 days allowed by the High Court; that considering the peculiar circumstances involved in the case, delay, is very insignificant and the appeals needs to be considered favourably for condoning the delay else grave injustice will be carried out.
3. Learned Departmental Representative opposed the prayer by saying that the Hon’ble High Court’s direction were very specific to prefer the Appeal within 10 days from today, i.e. 28.7.2003 and as the Appeal had been filed much beyond the time limit of 10 days given by the Hon’ble High Court, it was not open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay; that the Applicants should have sought the extension of time for filing the Appeal from the Hon’ble Court.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. A perusal of the High Court order dated 28.7.2003 reveals that the learned Counsel for the Applicants had sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file Appeal and he had prayed that as substantial time has been consumed in filing the writ petition, they may be granted a long time to prefer the Appeal. The Hon’ble High Court considered the prayer of the learned Counsel for the applicant sympathetically and directed that “if the petitioner prefers the Appeal within 10 days from today, their application for condonation of delay shall be considered favourably by the appellate authority.” It is not disputed by the applicant that they had not filed the Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within 10 days from July 28, 2003. In view of this specific direction of the High Court, the Appeal should have been filed within 10 days from 28.7.2003. The learned Departmental Representative has rightly emphasised that it was not within the competence of the Commissioner (Appeals) to extend the time for filing the appeal as the same had been granted by the Hon’ble High Court and if any extension was required, they should have approached the Hon’ble High Court. In view of this, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the Appeal as time barred. In View of this, there is no merit in the Appeal which is dismissed. The stay petition also stands disposed of.