HtGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH . BILASPUR ^VRIT_PET!T10N N0. 2095 OF 2001 PET1TIONER RESPONDENTS M/s Dipesh Steels, A proprietorship concern, through its Proprtetor Manoj Kumar Agrawai, S/b Shri ishwer Prasad Agarwal, aged about 30 years, R/o Daa'abadi, M.G. Road, Raipur. Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner (P), Centrai Excsse Head Quarters, Cerstra! Revenue Building, CivitLines, Raipur. 2. Customs, Excise and Gotd (Control) Appe!!ate Tribuna!, New Delhi, through sts Reaisfrar. (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Shashank Thakur, counsei for the petitioner. None for the respondents. i ORDER rORAU (Passed on this -12*'' day of August, 2009) 1.. Heardfsarned counsel forthe petitioner. ~ : 2. Chailenae in this Detition is to the legatitv and validitv of the order dated 27 June, 2001 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respohdent No.2. The petitloner a!so prays for quashlng of the order daied 5 March, 1999 (Annexure - P/4) and further a direction to the respondent No.1 not to recover any amount towards penalty. 3. The facts, in nutsheii, as projected by the petitioner, are that the psfsiioner. is a frader or Steel product. On the 3 October, 11996 seareh of the petitioner's business premises Was conducted anei the records, files, documents and Indian currency amounting to Rs.5,45,000/- were seized. Thereafter, the respondent authoj'ities issued a show cause notice dated 27 March, 1997 (Annexure - that the noticee have acauired Dossession of and are found tp be concerned jn transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, setlinj purchasing excisabte goods, which were clandestineiy removsd Pl?) and rom 't. \ ^A"-.-.- 5. -r2-' the manufacturing unst, v/ithout payment ot' Central Excise Duty and wifhout issuance of invoice/biits in contravention ot' the various provisions ofthe Centra! ExciseAct, 1944 (for short "the Act, 1944"). Thus, the petitioner concern has rendered itself liabie for penai action under Rute 209A of the Act, 1944. The petitioner submitted his reply on the 16tn September, 1997 (Annexure - P/3) and submltted thatthe search was iljeaat gnd without anv basis. It was also submitted that the amount has been ss order dated 5 March, Commissioner has isfactoriiy accounted for. Thereafter, by 1999 (Annexure - P/4) the Deputy amounSing to Rs.5,45,000/-, which Is the sate proceeds of excisable goods on which Centrai :xcise Dutv' has not been oaid and aiso ImDosed a penalw of Rs.1,01.000/- teing aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeai under Section 35 of ths Act, 1944 and also moved an application under Section 35-F of the Act. 1944 for disoensina with the ore- deposit of penalty along with memo of appeal. The prayer for grant of stay was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 7 Fsbrusrv. 2002 snd on 29 FsbfusifV. 2000 th6 SQDSSI Itssif wss dismissed for non-compiiance of the provisions of Section 35-F of the Act, 1944. Thereagainst, the petltioner preferred an appeal before; the :th respondent No.2 on the 5l" Fsbruary, 2001 aiong with an apptjcat'on for condonation of deSav in flling the appeai. it was stated m the applicaCon for condonation of delay that the petitsoner was not aware of the decision on ths application for stay. However, She responflent authorities withoui considering ihe facts and circumstancss otl case in its letter and spirit dismissed the appea! by order dateU June, 2001 (Annexure - P/1). Thus, this petition. the 27'h fii'i 0. Gow; •^' ! have heard Searned counsei appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. The appellate authoritv v/hile dismissina the aooeal of the petitiorter bv order dated 27th June, 2001 (Annexure - P/1) hetd that none appeared before the appeilats authority on behaif of the petitioner/appeliant to contest the appiication for condonatibn of delay. There was a detay of 7 months 5 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner has further not offered satisfactory reasons and exptanation for each day's delay. It is well settied Saw that in fisca! matters .the statute has to be construed strictiy. In the application filed before the appeilate authority the reasons given by the petitioner are as under : "5. That the applicant was not aware of the declsion of the stay and wajver 'applKstion and aiso the faie of the appeai, fffed 6y appScant When the Centra! Excise Officer started pressing ihe app!icant for paymet'it of the Govt. dties, the applicant got swafe ofihe fact that feoff? ff»roaftera have b^n ctecidscS. The applicant searched ffie entire office but to no avail. The applicant got suspictous that the Accountant whose sewices were tenninated might.have piayed the mischief and taken amay these orders, aiong wifff case ff/es as ffiey were nat avaiiable in our By no streteh of imagination, it can be heid that reasons have been alven bv the oetitioner exolai day-to-day basis for condonation of delay in filing the appeilate authority. in view offoregoing, the writ petition is Siable to be and is accordingiy dismissed. No ordsr asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihobri Judge