9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a huge liability of approximately more than ₹ 8 Crores and even now there is no property of the Company as the same has been sold and alleged to have been purchased by the close relatives of the petitioners and even in the premises of the petitioner No.1 Company, other Companies are running and they applied for Registration Certificate, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal - Condonation denied. - Special Civil Application No. 8763 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2014 - M. R. Shah And K. J. Thaker,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Paresh v. Sheth For the Respondent : Mr. Ay Kogje ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah) 1.00. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal, by which the learned tribunal has refused to condone the huge delay of 406 days caused in preferring the appeals against the order demanding huge Central Excise Duty liability of approximately more than 8 Crores. 2.00. Facts leading to the presents Special Civil Applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efusing to condone the delay and to condone the delay caused in preferring the appeals and to direct the learned tribunal to decide the appeals on merits. No other submissions have been made. 4.00. Present petition is opposed by Mr.A.Y. Kogje, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. An Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the present petition. It is submitted that as such, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal has rightly not accepted the case on behalf of the petitioners for not filing the appeals within the period of limitation. It is submitted that in fact other co-noticee had preferred appeals against the orders of penalty imposed vide Order-in-Original. However, the petitioners did not prefer appeal within the period of limitation deliberately. It is submitted that as such the properties of the Company have already been sold and as such the same have been purchased in auction by the close relatives of the petitioners. It is submitted that even after the Order-in-Original, the department started recovery proceedings and two Companies formed in the name of M/s.Neev Technocast Pvt. Ltd and M/s.Neev Metolog ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 in support of his submissions and request to dismiss the present petition. 5.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that pursuant to the Order-in-Original against the petitioners, there is a huge liability of approximately more than ₹ 8 Crores which is still due and payable by the petitioners. It is also required to be noted that there is a huge delay of 406 days caused in preferring the appeal before the learned tribunal against the Order-in-Original and demand of excise duty and penalty to the extent of approximately more than ₹ 8 Crores. The only ground on which the huge delay of 406 days sought to be condoned was that the authorised person of the Company advised that before filing an appeal, the Company will have to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty confirmed and since the Company was not in a position to deposit the amount duty and penalty, they did not file the appeal within the period of limitation. However, it is required to be noted that as such and so stated in the Affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self acknowledged the Order-in- Original No.71/Commr./2012 dated 19/21.11.2012 on 8/12/2012 underwhich they have been asked to pay Central Excise duty and penalties of ₹ 8.71. 11. I say and submit that being aggrieved against the action taken for not granting the Registrateion Certificate, both the parties M/s.Neev Met and Tech approached Hon'ble Gujarat High Court under Articles 226,227 of the Constitution of India by filing two SCA No.13326 of 2013 and 13323 of 2013 on 12/8/2013. 12. I say and submit that this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of the aforementioned petition by Order Dtd.13/11/2013. The copy of the Order passed by this Hon'ble Court (Coram : M.R. Shah R.P. Dholaria, JJ) is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R-1. 13. I say and submit that on the direction so passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the respondent No.4, issued SCNs and after heard the case, passed Order-In-Original No.17 18/D/2013-14 dated 30/12/2013 and rejected the registration application dated 11/6/2013 mainly on the grounds that (1) Huge Govt. dues were to be recovered from the petitioner No.1 2 (2) The land and buildings including machinery of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
