9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 on 30.8.2011 had extended the time by one month for depositing the amount. The said order also remained uncomplied with as the petitioner never deposited any amount in pursuance to the order dated 30.8.2011 extending the time. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 30.9.2011. Besides concealment of factum of filing of CWP No.16013 of 2011 is there on the part of the petitioner disentitling it to any discretionary relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the present writ also suffers from delay and laches as well. - Decided against assessee. - CWP No.20104 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a value of ₹ 5 lacs. Vide letters dated 18.7.2005 and 28.7.2005, the Range Officer demanded copies of the invoices alongwith duty paying documents with regard to disposal of the said machinery. Vide letter dated 3.8.2005, the petitioner submitted a copy of Store Challan No.51 dated 11.4.2005 showing sale of machinery scrap valued at ₹ 5 lacs without charging any central excise duty from the buyer. The petitioner further clarified that no Central Excise duty was paid on such scrap. On perusal of the said challan, it was found that the buyer's name and address of the goods was not mentioned on it. The goods were sold against cash payments of ₹ 5 lacs. During further enquiries, Shri Narender Singh owner of the truck denie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 30.9.2011, Annexure P.6 for non compliance of the order dated 13.5.2011 passed by it. Now the petitioner has deposited the amount of ₹ 8 lacs vide challan dated 19.2.2015 and intimated the same to the Assistant Commissioner and prays for hearing the appeal by the Tribunal. Hence the instant petition by the petitioner. 4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 13.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal vide order dated 13.5.2011 passed a conditional stay order and directed the appellant to deposit ₹ 8 lacs within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts have not approached the court with clean hands, and are therefore, not entitled for any relief. Whenever a person approaches a Court of Equity, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is expected that he will approach the said court not only with clean hands but also with a clean mind, a clean heart and clean objectives. Thus, he who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem , means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by causing loss or injury to another. (Vide: The Ramjas Foundation Ors. v. Union of India Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852; Nooruddin v. (Dr.) K.L. Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242; and Ramniklal N. Bhutta Anr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings. (Vide: Ritesh Tewari Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 677; and Amar Singh v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69). 7. Additionally, this Court while dismissing earlier CWP No.16013 of 2011 on 30.8.2011 had extended the time by one month for depositing the amount. The said order also remained uncomplied with as the petitioner never deposited any amount in pursuance to the order dated 30.8.2011 extending the time. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 30.9.2011. Besides concealment of factum of filing of CWP No.16013 of 2011 is there on the part of the petitioner disentitling it to any discretionary rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
