TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 8509.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that there was partnership firm and which was engaged in manufacturing of these goods. The manufacturing activities were commenced from 7-4-1987. The requisite formalities to have the trademark registered were complied with and later on the grievance is that the Petitioner became owner of this brand. The Petitioner filed the requisite declarations and sought exemption from payment of duty on the said mixers and grinders manufactured by him under SSI Exemption Notification No. 16/97-C.E., dated 1-4-1997. It is the case of the Petitioner that the visit was paid by the officers of the Headquarters (Preventive) of the Central Excise Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion was dismissed on 30-6-2003 for non-compliance with this Court's order. 6. Then the Petitioner claims to have addressed several letters personally as also through his Advocate and for consideration of his case sympathetically. The Petitioner filed another Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 1723/2011. That Writ Petition came to be dismissed in default on 11-10-2011. The Notice of Motion No. 588/2011 was preferred seeking restoration of the Writ Petition and setting aside the earlier order. That Notice of Motion was, according to the Petitioner, granted and the Writ Petition was restored. However, on the own showing of the Petitioner, the said Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 2-2-2012 holding that there are no changed circums....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application in the Tribunal. That having been voluntarily withdrawn we do not see how third Writ Petition is maintainable. 9. When we invited the attention of Mr. Chaudhary, counsel appearing for the Petitioner, to all these events and undisputed facts he would urge that the Court can take a sympathetic view in writ jurisdiction. He firstly relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 = 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). 10. There, the Honourable Supreme Court was concerned with a request to condone the delay in filing an appeal. The Appeal filed by the State of Jammu & Kashmir through the Collector was dela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....htra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital & Regional Cancer Centre v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2012 (285) E.L.T. 496 (Bom.), which condoned the delay in making a pre-deposit. That is in the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case of the Assessee therein which was Cancer Hospital. The Cancer Hospital could not comply with the Tribunal's order of pre-deposit. Therefore, bearing in mind the peculiar facts and the conduct of the Appellant before this Court was not found to be blameworthy that the delay was condoned, the amount was directed to be deposited and the appeal was restored. This order once again turns upon the peculiar facts and cannot assist the Petitioner. 13. Lastly, reliance on the order passed by the Honourable Supr....