- (1.) In C.A. No. 6575/2003: At the outset it was conceded by Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant/Union Of India, that the duty involved in the present case is only Rs. 4,77,131/-. Keeping in view the smallness of the financial implication and the fact that the matter is otherwise decided against the Department by the CEGAT, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed leaving the question of law open. In C.A. No. 4947/2008
(2.) To put the controversy in short, the appeal of the Respondent herein preferred against the demand of Customs duty raised by the Appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal as time-barred. The Respondent had given some justification for approaching the Tribunal belatedly but that was not accepted as constituting sufficient cause. As a result, the appeal of the Respondent was dismissed as time barred. Against that order, the Respondent approached the High Court. The High Court had, vide impugned judgment dated 6-12-2007, accepted the plea of the Respondent and condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. As a result, the High Court has directed the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the impugned order. Against that order the Union of India has preferred this appeal.
(3.) After going through the judgment of the High Court, we find that the High Court has exercised its discretion on valid considerations and there is no reason to interfere with the said discretion exercised by the High Court in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The matter is relegated to the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the Respondent on merits. Since much time has elapsed in between, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months from today. In C.A. No. 546/2009;