9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the first respondent. 3. Firstly, a writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original cannot be maintained, as an appeal remedy was available to the petitioner. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had availed an appeal remedy and sought for interim order before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an interim order dated 01.2.2010 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1 Crore. The petitioner filed an application on 23.3.2010 before the Tribunal for modification of the order dated 01.2.2010. However, the Tribunal rejected the application for modification by order dated 07.6.2010. 5. What is to be noted is that in the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court, by judgment dated 13.2.2015, dismissed CMA. No.61 of 2015. In doing so, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court not only rejected the appeal on the ground that there are no substantial questions of law involved, but approved the findings rendered by the Tribunal with regard to the merits of the case as well as the conditional order to pay Rs. 1 Crore. 8. As against the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in CMA.No.61 of 2015 dated 13.2.2015, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(C).No.27970 of 2015, which was dismissed by order dated 12.10.2015. Even thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.P.(C).No.152 of 2016, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid against the Order-in-Original. 12. In the instant case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion for more than one reason. Firstly, the matter involves a commercial transaction and it is not as if the petitioner was not aware of their rights. A cursory reading of the Order-in-Original dated 27.2.2009, which runs to more than 55 pages, shows that extensive search and seizure operations were conducted in the place of business of the petitioner as well as the residential premises of the partners, statements were recorded, documents were seized and after analyzing the facts, an order came to be passed. There is also a finding to the effect that the petitioner created bogus records. The petitioner went before the Tribunal alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
