9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to that question has to be in the negative. Neither does M/s Bimla Industries exist as on date on which the petition was filed nor can Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal represent himself to be the proprietor thereof and sue in the name of M/s Bimla Industries. There is another aspect of the matter. As aforesaid, the claim pertains to more than 15 years back i.e. August, 1989 to September, 2001. The petitioner did not pursue the same. Though as per the recommendation dated 15th July, 2008 supra only the claims of those were to be considered who had filed writ petitions and which writ petitions were pending and M/s Bimla Industries was admittedly not covered thereby but the applications of M/s Bimla Industries appear to have been erroneously revive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letter dated 15th July, 2008 recommended that those exporters who had filed the brand rate applications against exports made prior to 6th July, 2001 and whose writ petitions were pending before the High Court should be extended the benefit of the Circular No.68/97-Cus. or 39/99-Cus; (iii) (that even though the petitioner had not filed any writ petition and no writ petition of the petitioner was pending at that time but it appears that in terms of the aforesaid recommendation) the applications aforesaid of M/s. Bimla Industries were also considered and rejected vide order dated 19th October, 2010; (iv) that the said M/s Bimla Industries was merged with M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. with effect from 1st July, 2004 and accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations of M/s Bimla Industries for fixation of brand rate have not been decided. 5. This petition has been filed by M/s Bimla Industries through its proprietor Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal. 6. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner that once it is the averment in the petition itself that M/s Bimla Industries has as far back as on 1st July, 2004 merged with M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. and thereby ceased to exist, how has this petition been filed in the name of M/s Bimla Industries and how can Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal today purport to act as proprietor thereof. 7. The only reply of the counsel for the petitioner is that since the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide order dated 25th November, 2011 had directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. only. The petitioner did not challenge and has in this petition also not challenged the order dated 25th November, 2011 by which the claim of M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. was denied. 12. There is another aspect of the matter. As aforesaid, the claim pertains to more than 15 years back i.e. August, 1989 to September, 2001. The petitioner did not pursue the same. Though as per the recommendation dated 15th July, 2008 supra only the claims of those were to be considered who had filed writ petitions and which writ petitions were pending and M/s Bimla Industries was admittedly not covered thereby but the applications of M/s Bimla Industries appear to have been erroneously revived. The said erroneous revival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
