Soumitra Pal, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions were moved challenging the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Appellate Tribunal") dismissing the appeals for non -compliance of the orders passed by it directing predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("Central Excise Act" for short) or under 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Customs Act').
(2.) IT is to be noted that the writ petitions - i) W.P. No. 261 of 2008, Promising Exports Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. ii) W.P. No. 1161 of 2008, Indrajit Jash v. Union of India and Ors. iii) W.P. 2428(W) of 2008, Shree Krishna Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. iv) W.P. 4006(W) of 2008, Suresh Goyel and Sons v. Union of India and Ors. were moved challenging the orders passed in appeals by the Appellate Tribunal directing predeposit under Section 35F or under Section 129E of the Customs Act upon notice to the respondents including the Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the writ petitions, appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal for non -compliance of the orders directing predeposit. However, the writ petitions W.P. No. 230 of 2008, Shaman Ispat Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. and W.P. No. 1016 of 2008, Shree Gobinddeo Glass Works Ltd. and Anr v. Union of India and Ors. were moved after orders were passed by the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeals for not complying with the orders directing predeposit. The common grounds of challenge in these petitions are that the applications for dispensing with the predeposit under Section 35F or under 129E or the application for modification of the order directing predeposit in connection with the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal were not at all considered on merit as discretion was not exercised while considering relevant materials honestly, bonafide and objectively. Further the Appellate Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeals for non -compliance of the orders directing predeposit. Moreover, the Appellate Tribunal should not have dismissed the appeals of M/s. Promising Export Limited, Indrajit Jash, M/s. Shree Krishna Limited and Suresh Goyal and Sons since writ petitions were pending challenging the orders of the Appellate Tribunal directing predeposit. Besides the common grounds, in the writ petition relating to M/s. Shree Gobinddeo Glass Works Limited the grievance or the issue, in short, is that the Appellate Tribunal while passing the order directing predeposit did not take note of the fact that the petitioner was registered with the BIFR. In M/s. Shree Krishna Limited though the quantum of duty and penalty were more than Rs. 10 lakhs, a learned single member of the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal for non -compliance of the order directing predeposit in violation of the provisions contained in Section 35D of the Central Excise Act and had thus exceeded his jurisdiction. In Indrajit Jash the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing predeposit on the ground that it failed to consider the fact that no show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act was served on him in his individual capacity which is evident from the notice of show cause and the adjudication order and thus, the order is void. Further the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was no concession and there cannot be any concession on a point of law by the learned advocate for the appellant as recorded in the order. In M/s. Shaman Ispat Limited the grievance is though a sum of Rs. 1,41,49,000.00 was deposited till the date of passing of the order by the Appellate Tribunal, yet the financial stringency faced by the appellant was not considered. In M/s. Promising Exports Limited grievance is though it is evident that the exports were duly certified by the customs authorities, transactions were through normal banking channels and there was no complaint from the importer, yet orders were passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing predeposit under 129E without considering the facts. In Suresh Goyel and sons (HUF) it has been stated that though additional evidences were furnished, those were not considered by the Appellate Tribunal while passing the order dated 1 February, 2008. Besides, in the writ petitions there are short points which were raised and argued.
(3.) SINCE the issues involved are common, the matters were heard analogously. Elaborate arguments were advanced.;