Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oration application claiming that the order of pre-deposit passed in the year 2001 by the Tribunal is complied with belatedly, but not pressing the application for restoration that the Petitioner cannot approach this Court and in writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition seeks the very relief which was the subject matter of the restoration application in the Tribunal. That having been voluntarily withdrawn we do not see how third Writ Petition is maintainable. Having found that the present Writ Petition is gross abuse of this Court’s jurisdiction, the order of pre-deposit passed in the year 2001 was complied with belatedly and the restoration application was not pressed before the Tribunal we dismiss this Writ Petition with costs quantified a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ded. There was seizure effected. Later on the show cause notice came to be issued alleging that the Petitioner claims to be manufacturing the grinders, mixers and parts thereof, but the brand name belongs to a distinct entity. Therefore, contravention of the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules was alleged. The reply was given to the show cause notice after which the personal hearing was granted. The order came to be passed on 14-2-2000 demanding the duty of central excise and levying the penalty. 4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order an Appeal was preferred and the Petitioner does not dispute that this Appeal came to be dismissed for non-compliance with the condition of pre-deposit. The Tribunal thus hel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r in writ jurisdiction. 7. After this Writ Petition was dismissed the Petitioner claims to have paid or deposited the duty amount of ₹ 13,10,581/-. After the amount was deposited and the Petitioner sought restoration of his appeal by making an application before the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not pass any order as is now admitted, but this restoration application was withdrawn by the Petitioner. The Petitioner then claims that there is an order at Annexure-X to the petition and in which, according to the Petitioner, the Tribunal records this withdrawal of the application for restoration of the Appeal. That order is dated 15-5-2012. 8. We do not see how after the Petitioner on his own approaches the Tribunal and seeks sympathy an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed and reiterated liberal approach in condoning the delay. Here, we are not considering any application made for condonation of delay by the Petitioner. But, we are concerned with the conduct of the Petitioner in seeking equitable and sympathetic relief from this Court and thereafter, not complying with the orders and directions in that behalf. The Petitioner has been taking chances and by approaching either this Court or the Tribunal. That the Petitioner seeks to comply with the order made by the Tribunal in the year 2001 after more than 11 years, therefore, is no ground to assist him in writ jurisdiction. That is equitable, discretionary and extraordinary as well. Therefore, reliance on this judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is cle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... decision the Honourable Supreme Court passed an order in the peculiar circumstances where the direction to deposit issued by the Tribunal was partially complied with. Out of the sum of ₹ 18 lacs as condition precedent for entertaining the appeal on merits the Appellant could deposit only ₹ 6 lacs. He filed two applications for restoration and which came to be rejected. The Tribunal did not take into consideration the fact that pending the second application for restoration the Appellant paid the remaining amount of ₹ 3 lacs. It is in these peculiar circumstances that this Court s order dismissing the Appellant s Writ Petition was set aside. Time was granted to deposit the balance sum of ₹ 9 lacs. All this was in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates