TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontravention of the principles of natural justice. Their orders, therefore, cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. - Writ Petition No. 12726 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2018 - S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/by PDS Legal for petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly i/by Ms. Mayur Mujumdar for respondents. PC : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders-in-original dated 31st January 2012 and 30th December 2012 passed by third respondent. Both these orders are styled as orders-in-original. 2. The petitioner before us is a partnership firm registered under Indian Partnership Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notices. The reply could not be filed because the partner was undergoing treatment with Neuro-Psychiatrist. The treatment was between 4th June 2010 till 7th January 2015. There were two orders passed, which are now styled as ex-parte orders-in-original and of the above dates. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with these two orders, two separate appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals were not filed in time. Hence an application for condonation of delay and for stay came to be filed. The appeals were rejected by common order dated 16th December 2014 (Exhibit-F to the petition). The appeals were rejected on the ground of limitation. 6. Aggrieved thereby, two separate appeals were filed before Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t allowed the appeal and it quashed the orders-in-original. Merely because in this case the Tribunal is handicapped on account of provisions of law, in writ jurisdiction, we should take a lenient view of the matter, is the argument of Mr. Shah. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly appearing for respondents submits that the Tribunal's order passed earlier would not be of any assistance. It is pointed out by the respondents, according to Mr. Jetly, on affidavit in this case as to how there was a total negligence on petitioner's part. The show cause notices were issued. The show cause notices were adjudicated after personal hearing was granted and extensively. Mr. Jetly would rely upon paragraphs 5A and 5B of the affidavit-in-reply, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egations in the show cause notice and no reply has been filed thereto; but an admission of the liability, then, it was not obliged to wait any further. The first show cause notice, therefore, was concluded by order dated 31st July 2012. 12. In relation to the second show cause notice as well, the adjudicating authority found that no reply to the said show cause notice was filed. A reminder was issued to the petitioner to file reply by letters dated 23rd July 2012, 28th August 2012, 17th September 2012 and 9th October 2012. No reply was filed nor any cognizance was taken of these letters, though petitioner's partner acknowledged receipt thereof. The acknowledgement is also referred and is stated to be dated 14th June 2012. Thus, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pertinently, in this case, whenever the petitioner was aggrieved and dissatisfied by the orders-in-original, he promptly approached the appellate authorities. When he approached the authorities in the earlier cases and aggrieved by order styled as order-in-original, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune dated 8th November 2011 and sought condonation of delay, the Tribunal granted it. However, in the present case, the Tribunal and the appellate authority could not have condoned the delay in law. Though this writ petition is filed, we find that the conduct of the petitioner is not such as would enable it to seek any discretionary and equitable relief; more so, when we have noted that the order cannot be termed as ex-parte simply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
