1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Central Excise Appeal No. 8/2010 M/s Indoworth India Ltd., vs. Customs,Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. R.P.Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K.Mishra, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATE : 2.2.2011 This is an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Member, Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to “the Appellate Tribunal) directing the appellant to make pre-deposit of Rs. 4 crore towards the duty in Appeal No. E/283/08 within a period of eight weeks. Admittedly, the appellant could not or did not deposit the amount and preferred this appeal before this Court. On 18.8.2010 2` this court accepted the variance of the amount of pre- deposit . This Court accepted the statement made on behalf of the appellant that they will deposit Rs. 2 crore within a period of six weeks from that date i.e. 18.8.2010 and observed that if the amount is not deposited the appeal shall stand dismissed. Admittedly that amount has not been deposited. 2. In the meanwhile, the appellant preferred application for modification of the order dated 18.8.2010 on 30.9.2010 which was decided on 11.10.2010 and this Court declined to modify the order. 3. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not been able to deposit the amount. In fact, the appellant made an attempt by making a prayer to this court for reduction of the amount because of inability. The learned counsel further submits that the amount is now ready and the appellant is willing to hand over the amount today. He, therefore, prays for condonation of delay in keeping the 3` amount ready. The learned counsel submits that this is because of financial stringency. 4. Mr. S.K. Mishra, the learned counsel for the assessee vehemently opposes the application on the ground that the appellant has failed in their attempt to have the order dated 18.8.2010 reviewed by the earlier application and, therefore, they should not be granted any indulgence. 5. We find from the circumstances of the case that the order dated 11.10.2010 was not an order passed on the application for review but was passed on the application by which the appellant sought to further reduce the amount from Rs. 2 crore as ordered on 18.8.2010. Thus, the question before is, whether the amount of pre-deposit as reduced by the court vide order dated 18.10.2010 should be accepted now after this delay. 6. Having regard to the circumstances of the 4` case, we are of the view that this court has already accepted that the amount be reduced from Rs. 4 crore to Rs. 2 crore. The delay in depositing the amount seems to be due to inability. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dinesh International Ltd. vs. Union of India (2010(249) E.L.T., 321) where the Supreme Court permitted a pre-deposit amount after a lapse of 16 months from the due date by charging interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of pre-deposit for the period of delay. 7. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, we find that it would serve the interests of justice if the delay of about 4 months in complying with the order dated 18.8.2010 is condoned upon the appellant making the entire payment of Rs. 2 crore with interest @ 9% p.a. from 29.9.2010 within a period of 48 hours from now. Subject to this, the appeal shall be liable to be restored and be heard on merits by the learned Tribunal. In the above terms the appeal as well 5` the civil application no. 134/2010 stand disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE patle