Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (6) TMI 267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....prosecuted in Delhi High Court. The order passed in this behalf on 8-5-2006 was sought to be reviewed but the review application was also dismissed on 12-10-2006 against which the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (for short 'SLP'). The SLP was converted into a Civil Appeal No. 5153/2007 and was disposed of vide order dated 12-11-2007. In terms of para 12 of that order it is the present appeal which was directed to be dealt with on merits. In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellant was required to take steps to re-activate the present appeal but failed to do anything of that sort. It is the Registry of this Court, which of its own, in view of the order received from the Supreme Court posted the appeal before the Court on 26-2-200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Supreme Court on 12-11-2007 but they failed to do so. In para 2 of the application for condonation of delay (CM No. 18535/2010) there is an averment that after passing of the order by the Supreme Court, the appellant approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for sending the file to this Court but the appellant was informed that there was no such direction by the Supreme Court which is quite apparent from the order of the Supreme Court itself. As to when the appellant approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court is not stated. All that is stated is that the appellant was thereafter advised to file an application for restoration, which is stated to have been filed on 25-9-2009 which application is stated not to have been listed for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ulars in support of the application for condonation of delay. The affidavit be filed within one (1) week. List on 16-5-2011. We have put the learned counsel for the appellant to notice that if we are inclined to allow the applications for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal, we will hear the appeal on merits on that date." 2. It is in pursuance of this order that the appellant was required to file an affidavit within a week. The affidavit was not filed and thus, on 16-5-2011, as prayed for, was granted last opportunity to do so within two days. The affidavit is again not on record as it is stated to have been filed beyond the time stipulated on 23-5-2011 and thus returned under objection. This is how the appellant see....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the society. The petitioner is a limited company seeking to claim duty drawback in respect of exports which has been denied to the petitioner on account of misdeclaration both in respect of 'quality' and 'quantity' of goods. 5. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, (2005) 3 5CC 752 = 2005 (183) E.L.T. 337 (S.C.) does not come to the aid of the appellant apart from the fact that the observations made therein were in the context of a shootout incident investigated by the police in a case under Sections 302/307/326/34 IPC. 6. We thus find that there is no ground whatsoever for condonation of delay of this inordinately long period of time. 7. De....