CUS.A.A.7/2008 - CUS.A.A. 12/2008 Page No.1 of 5 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 15.12.2008 + Cus. A.A 7/08 BABA LEATHER IMPEX PVT. LTD. … Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION) … Respondent AND Cus. A.A 8/08 DO BEST TRADE CORPORATION … Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION) … Respondent AND Cus. A.A 9/08 BABA LE CRAFTS PVT. LTD. … Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION) … Respondent AND CUS.A.A.7/2008 - CUS.A.A. 12/2008 Page No.2 of 5 Cus. A.A 10/08 TRADE & TREND … Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION) … Respondent AND Cus. A.A. 11/08 RAJ KUMAR ANAND … Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION) … Respondent AND Cus. A.A 12/08 TRADE DIGNITY … Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION) … Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr G. L. Rawal, Sr Advocate with Mr Abhinav Jain and Ms Reema Jain For the Respondent : Mr Mukesh Anand CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? CUS.A.A.7/2008 - CUS.A.A. 12/2008 Page No.3 of 5 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 17568/2008 in CUS. A. A. 7/2008, CM 17570/2008 in CUS. A. A. 8/2008, CM 17572/2008 in CUS. A. A. 9/2008, CM 17574/2008 in CUS. A. A. 10/2008, CM 17576/2008 in CUS. A. A. 11/2008, CM 17578/2008 in CUS. A. A. 12/2008 (for exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CUS. A. A. 7/2008 & CM 17567/2008, CUS. A. A. 8/2008 & CM 17569/2008, CUS. A. A. 9/2008 & CM 17571/2008, CUS. A. A. 10/2008 & CM 17573/2008, CUS. A. A. 11/2008 & CM 17575/2008, CUS. A. A. 12/2008 & CM 17577/2008 1. These appeals are directed against the common final order dated 07.10.2008 whereby the appellants’ appeals before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal had been dismissed. 2. Initially the appellants had filed writ petitions being WP(C) Nos. 5438/2008, 5441/2008, 5448/2008, 5449/2008 & 5452/2008 against the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties. The said writ petitions were disposed of by our order dated 12.08.2008 granting an opportunity to the appellants to move further applications before the Tribunal taking up the plea of financial hardship specifically. We had also permitted the appellants to place all the material on record which may not have been there before the Tribunal in the first round with regard to the financial hardship. The learned counsel for the appellants had stated that the applications would be moved before the Tribunal CUS.A.A.7/2008 - CUS.A.A. 12/2008 Page No.4 of 5 within three weeks along with all the materials and documents. We had directed the Tribunal to dispose of all such applications, if made within the said period of three weeks, after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing. We had also made it clear that in case no such applications were filed within three weeks, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 02.06.2008 would operate fully. 3. The present appeals arise out of the common order dated 07.10.2008 wherein the Tribunal has observed that there were no applications filed by the appellants as directed by the High Court and that the appellants had only filed a set of documents on 02.09.2008 containing written submissions, balance sheets etc.. Although the learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that the written submissions be treated as applications, the Tribunal was not impressed by this submission and had decided that as per the procedure laid down in the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules for filing an application, the documents filed by the appellants did not conform to the requirements of an application. Consequently, the Tribunal, after holding that there were no applications on record inasmuch as the same were not in accordance with the Rules, particularly, as the same did not contain any verification, decided that the appeals themselves were liable to be CUS.A.A.7/2008 - CUS.A.A. 12/2008 Page No.5 of 5 dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962. We find no merit in the appeals. The same are dismissed. All pending applications also stand dispose of. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J RAJIV SHAKDHER, J December 15, 2008 SR