9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had made any attempt to file any application. Also no good reason seen to accept the plea of petitioner that to protect the interest of the petitioners the Court may hear the petitioners after imposing costs. It is only when laches of 25 years had been satisfactorily explained by the petitioners that the Court could have considered imposing costs but the petitioners have miserably failed to satisfy the Court about the laches. - Decided against the petitioner - Writ Tax No. 509 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2016 - Hon'ble Dilip Gupta And Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Rajeev Chaddha and Rajesh Jain For the Respondent :- B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi and Ashok Singh ORDER The Director and the Managin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be confiscated with an option to redeem the goods on a payment of fine of ₹ 10 lacs. Penalty of ₹ 5 lacs was imposed on the Company as also the two petitioners. Penalty of ₹ 2 lacs was also imposed on the Group Manager (Export) and Group Manager (Import). It is against the said order dated 28 October 1988 that the Company as also the petitioners filed appeals before the Tribunal. The petitioners state that both the companies, namely, Dior and Kapri of which the petitioners were also the Director and Managing Director fell sick and liquidation proceedings were initiated before the Delhi High Court and by order dated 1 May 1995 both the Companies were ordered to be wound up. The petitioners allege that they had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion proceedings the winding up orders dated 1 May 1995 were passed against the said two companies and even after the dismissal of the two Appeals filed by the petitioners on account of non-prosecution, the department was requiring the Liquidator to deposit the amount due to the petitioners as also against the Company and so the petitioners were justified in approaching the Court in 2013 since it is then that the Department required the petitioners to deposit the due amount. In this connection learned counsel has placed the letters sent by the Department in 2002 and similar letters. To support his submission that laches should be condoned learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Kr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners under Section 129(1) of the Act and the petitioners availed the remedy. The appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed on 4 November 1997 for non-prosecution. There is nothing on record to indicate that petitioners have filed any application for recall of the aforesaid order dated 4 November 1997. The case that has been set up by the petitioners for condoning the enormous laches on the part of the petitioners is that the companies were ordered to be wound up on 1 May 1995 and a communication dated 24 January 2002 was sent by the Superintendent, Central Excise to the Official Liquidator regarding deposit of the penalty by the Company instead of the petitioners. A perusal of the letter dated 24 January 2002 does not indicate tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Act does prescribe that discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit and even a long delay can be condoned when the explanation is found to be satisfactory. In Chandra Mani (supra) the Supreme Court condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. It is in this context that the Supreme Court examined the manner in which the government functions in filing appeals and observed that an individual can take a quick decision whether he should pursue the remedy of an appeal since he is legally injured, while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Considered from this perspective the Supreme Court condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal by the State Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
