TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Court how the present petitioner which stepped into the shoes of KMBL after its merger with EL, the present petitioner EL can revive the cause after KMBL had withdrawn the challenge by withdrawal of the writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court without reserving any such liberty to reagitate the issue. The impugned order, Annexure–A, dated 25.5.2006 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or passed in breach of principles of natural justice and therefore, the said order does not require any interference - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - Writ Petiton No. 4061/2014 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 14-11-2017 - Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. Mr. Nischal Dev., Adv. for Petitioner Mr.C. Shashi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is needless to clarify that, all the grounds urged by the parties are left open. 3. The petitioner company, EL thereafter has now filed the present writ petition in this Court on 27.1.2014 again challenging the very same order once again. 4. Mr. Nischal Dev, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that even though the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had sanctioned a Revival Scheme for the said company which had turned sick and the BIFR sanctioned a Scheme on 3.6.2003 in Case No. 138/1999 for KMBL, thereafter the said merger with the present peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exemption from customs duty given to that company on the undertaking that they would meet certain export obligations, which admittedly during the relevant period, that company failed to meet and therefore the said fiscal penalty is nothing but compensatory custom duty payable to the Department and there is no justification for waiver of the said penalty or quashing of the same by this Court. He also submitted that with the withdrawal of the Writ Petition by KMBL, this petitioner- company cannot revive the same cause again. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the present writ petition and the fiscal penalty in question is not liable to be quashed by this Court. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
