TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority and directed respondent to pass an order afresh in light of the observation - 5751 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2009 - A.L. Dave and K.A. Puj, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Mitul K. Shelat, for the Petitioner. S/Shri Harin P. Raval and Darshan M. Parikh, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : A.L. Dave, J. (Oral)]. - Rule : The petitioner has approached this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making following prayers :- "(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application; (B) Your Lordships further be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in the interest of justice." 2. The petitioner runs Devikrupa Industries at Rajkot. The officer of the Excise Department had searched the premises on 9-1-2003 and thereafter a show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 5-12-2003 by the Jt. Commissioner, Custdms Central Excise calling upon him to show why duty of Rs. 8,69,280/- should not be levied under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from the petitioner alongwith interest and penalty under Section 11AB and Section 11AC. A reply to the show cause notice was given by the petitioner on 11-2-2004. After hearing the petitioner's authorised representative on the issue, the respondent No. 3 passed order on 25-11-2004 and directed the petitioner to pay the said amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal, so also the order of refusal of condonation of delay passed by the respondent No. 2 by way of preferring Special Civil Application No. 27055 of 2006. The said petition came to be disposed of by order dated 13-3-2008 whereby the petition came to be rejected while making following observations; "We leave it open to the petitioners to file fresh petitions for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of challenging the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authorities. As and when such writ petitions are filed, we will deal with the facts in each individual case." This situation has given rise to the present petition. 4.We have heard learned advocate Mr. Shelat for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinated Bench of this Court and, therefore, now cannot contend that the petition is not maintainable. 8. We have considered rival submissions. There cannot be any dispute on the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in Singh Enterprises and Hongo India (P) Ltd. (supra) and provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be applied to the cases under Central Excise Act, 1944, even by resorting to Section 29 of the Limitation. In the instant case, however, the Coordinate Bench of this Court made the observations as reproduced hereinabove and granted liberty to challenge the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authorities. This order was not challenged by the respondents authorities before the higher forum. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
