9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Priyadarshi Manish and Ms. Anjali Manish, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Ms. Sonia Mathur and Shri M.P. Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. The petition impugns the order dated 4th December, 2007 of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been preferred after nearly four years of the order. The petitioner has in para 47 of the petition referred to the order dated 4th December, 2007; thereafter in para 48, without stating that the order was not received by the petitioner, it is stated that on 7th January, 2008, the petitioner had requested the Appellate Authority to send all commun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l penalty of ₹ 80,00,000/- on the petitioner for non-fulfillment of the export obligation after availing of benefits in import duty; the petitioner, aggrieved therefrom preferred an appeal; however, the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 20th July, 2005 for default in appearance of the petitioner and also for the reason of the petitioner having failed to make the pre-deposit. 5. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No. 2413/2006 in this Court and which was disposed of vide order dated 21st February, 2006; even though this court found that the petitioner had received more than sufficient indulgence but in the interest of justice, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e against immediately after preferring the appeal in the year 2007. The entire conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has been evading the duty due from him and has filed this petition only upon being threatened with recovery. However, an opportunity has been given to the petitioner to deposit ₹ 30,00,000/- in this court for the case to be considered. The counsel for the petitioner is not willing for the same. 10. In the circumstances aforesaid, no error is found in the order of the Appellate Authority of rejecting the appeal for the reason of the petitioner having not made the pre-deposit. 11. I may notice that the counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice has argued that besides the aspect of delay, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
