9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssal of W.P.(C) No.934/2010 preferred by the appellant. Though the appeal is accompanied with applications for condonation of 102 days delay in filing and 11 days delay in re-filing thereof and though we do not find any sufficient cause for condonation of delay to have been disclosed but the counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4 and the counsel for the respondent no.5 having appeared on advance notice, we have without regard to the said fact also heard the appeal on merits, to consider the admissibility thereof. 4. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed impugning the order dated 21st January, 2010 of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) rejecting the request of the appellant for extension of period for fulfill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition inter alia observing that a period of fourteen and half years had elapsed since the appellant imported the capital goods and the appellant having failed to fulfil its export obligation subject to which it was permitted to import goods without payment of the requisite duty, there was no error in the rejection by the DGFT of the application of the appellant seeking further extension. 8. The counsel for the appellant, before us, has raised only two arguments. Firstly, it is contended that though the order dated 8th June, 2006 (supra) permitted the appellant to fulfil the export obligation by exporting alternate product manufactured by the appellant or its group companies in terms of the provisions contained in para 5.4(i) of the Fore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the writ petition from which this appeal arises being to the refusal of extension but even otherwise is fallacious. In fact, we have enquired from the counsel for the appellant that even if that be so, what prejudice thereby has been caused to the appellant; what else could the appellant have said even if had been served with a fresh notice. 12. We have further enquired whether the appellant had made any attempts to export an alternate product and had been refused permission therefor. 13. The counsel for the appellant has fairly agreed that neither any prejudice has been caused to the appellant nor did the appellant make any attempt to export any alternate product. 14. In the circumstances, the said second contention also is to be reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
