CWP No.5367 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5367 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.3.2010 M/s Raj Furnitures ............Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Vinod Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. 1. By way of present petition petitioner is assailing the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi, thereby rejecting the application of rectification. 2. Undisputedly, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 22.5.2009 directed the petitioner to make pre-deposit of rupees two crores within six weeks. CWP No.5367 of 2010 -2- Undisputedly, order dated 22.5.2009 passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Delhi High Court. Undisputedly, Delhi High Court did not grant any stay in favour of the petitioner against the direction of the learned Tribunal to make pre- deposit of rupees two crores. Undisputedly, order of Delhi High Court refusing to grant stay against the pre-deposit was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.8.2009 dismissed the SLP filed by the petitioner, however, time to make pre-deposit was extended by ten weeks. Undisputedly, petitioner has not made pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal within time as extended by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.8.2009. It seems thereafter petitioner moved an application seeking rectification. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that dismissal of appeal on hyper-technical ground for not making pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal within time as extended by the Hon’ble Apex Court should not come in the way of the petitioner in moving the rectification application. The second argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that order rejecting the rectification does not assign any reason therein. 4. Undisputedly, order of the learned Commissioner dated 31.12.2008 is a detailed order which was challenged before the Tribunal. We are of the view that there is no need to pass detailed order while dismissing rectification/review application, if order under review/rectification is detailed speaking order. 5. Application for rectification was not rejected by the CWP No.5367 of 2010 -3- learned Commissioner on the ground appeal was dismissed for non- compliance of pre-deposit order. Order impugned shows that rectification application was dismissed because competent authority found that there was no apparent need for any rectification. 6. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this petition which in our view is an abuse of process of law. 7. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 25.03.2010 JUDGE ashish