9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad no knowledge of service of Order-in-Original, no effort was made on its part to prefer an appeal. Writ petition was preferred after expiry of the statutory period of limitation without any cogent explanation. This Court does not find any grounds made out to entertain the writ petition - Petition dismissed. - W. P (T) No. 5591 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2021 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh And Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary For the Petitioner : M/s Sumeet Gadodia, Shili Sandil, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar for the Respondent Central Excise and Service Tax. 2. Writ petitioner has approach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty under section 11AC of the Act of 1944 (Annexure-2). It is contended that the extended period of limitation under section 11A (1) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. 4. Petitioner has pleaded that it had not availed the CENVAT Credit on any of the capital goods. The removal of plant and machineries had taken place before 25.01.2007. The petitioner-Company had cooperated with the enquiry initiated by the Range Office and also submitted the requisite documents. Pursuant to summon proceedings, statement of the authorized representative of the Company was recorded under section 14 of the Act of 1944 on 30.09.2008 which revealed that the plant and machineries were removed in the month of January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom palpable illegality, this Court may entertain the writ petition, even though petitioner had not availed an alternative remedy of appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, on these submissions, pressed the prayer made in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that despite knowledge of the order of detention dated 22.03.2015 (Annexure-5), the petitioner-Company did not prefer an appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act and approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kakinada and others Versus Glaxo Smith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies in the canvass of the facts and provisions of law noticed hereinabove. It is not in dispute that the writ petition has been preferred bypassing the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the petitioner. Even after receipt of the detention order dated 22.03.2015 assuming that the petitioner had no knowledge of service of Order-in-Original, no effort was made on its part to prefer an appeal. Writ petition was preferred after expiry of the statutory period of limitation without any cogent explanation. In these circumstances, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Supra), this Court does not find any grounds made out to entertain th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
