9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first order, the Excise Commissioner has debarred the petitioners from dealing with excise department of the State in any manner for a period of five years. Subsequent order has been passed by the District Excise Officer in compliance thereof, thereby blacklisting the petitioner firm, its Director Shri Ankur Goyal, its authorized signatory Shri Vikas Lamba and all other persons related to the petitioner firm. Briefly stated the facts, as stated in memo of writ petition, are that petitioner firm is engaged in business of foreign liquor. It purchases liquor from distributor Tanisha overseas, which is said to be authorized to distribute all type of foreign made liquor and on the basis of representation made by said Tanisha overseas, petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the District Excise Officer recorded adverse finding in order dated 19.02.2014 and 07.04.2014 and in pursuance whereof, the order of blacklisting was sent to the petitioner firm. Hence this writ petition. Perusal of order/memorandum dated 12.02.2012 (Annexure-9) passed by the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, indicates that impugned order has been passed on the basis of complaint sent by M/s Embassy International, T-6, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi, to the effect that it had authorized M/s Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, for sale of 'Grey Goose Vodka' liquor, in the State of Rajasthan for the year 2012-13. Similarly another complaint was made by one M/s Global Tax Free Traders Inc 87, Sainik Farms Central Avenue, N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue compliance of principles of natural justice and factual foundation of the impugned order has not been disputed. Blacklisting of the petitioner firm for a period of five years cannot be said to be in any manner excessive of harsh penalty. Contention of the petitioner is that it has acted bona-fide in the matter, is absolutely without any basis. It contention that it has made such supply there in the first place, i.e. supply was made to the petitioner firm by M/s Global Tax Free Traders Inc, which was supplier of the petitioner and there was no fault of the petitioner and that the petitioner has acted bona-fide also cannot be believed. None of the impugned orders passed by the Excise Commissioner and the District Excise Officer suffer fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
