9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner is that he was working with M/s. Dollar Poly Pipe India Limited and thereafter, was appointed as Director in the company. In the year 2004 he resigned from the company and also from the directorship and had nothing to do with the affairs of the company after that show cause notice had been issued on 2-2-2007 to M/s. Dollar Poly Pipes Limited, its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dharamvir Bansal and V.K. Garg, Managing Director, proposing confiscation of goods and imposing penalty on the petitioner by raising a demand of Rs. 7,82,711/- in respect of duty free imported goods and a penalty of Rs. 25 lacs had been imposed upon the petitioner by the Commissioner vide the order dated 5-3-2009. The order dated 5-3-2009, was passed by responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g as the Accountant for both the firms, M/s. Dollar Poly Pipes Limited and M/s. Shivalik Plastichem (India) Limited and was working under the directions of Vinod Kumar Bansal and had received the notice and filed appeal on 16-6-2009. Being an MBA, and while working with Vinod Kumar Bansal, he had complete knowledge of law. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was defended. 4. The petitioner filed replication to the written statement, today in the Court, which has been taken on record, stating that House No. 529, Sector 12, Panchkula had been sold in auction by the Bank and reiterated the pleas already taken. 5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30-6-2011 shows that the Tribunal has noticed that the appeal was filed on 27-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is able to show sufficient cause for the delay and justifies the same, the Court shall condone the delay. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there should be a liberal approach in the condonation of delay where the cause for the delay is justified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anant Nag & Others v. MST Katiji - AIR 1987 SC 1353 = 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) held that the litigant ordinarily does not stand in lodging the appeal late and the Courts have to do substantial justice and technical considerations are not to be taken into account. There has to be a culpable negligence or mala fides and if a litigant does not gain by resorting to delay, the case should not be thrown out at the thresho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
