9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany. Furthermore, the learned counsel would submit that he was also of the bonafide belief that no orders were passed because in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition by the Assistant Commissioner, there is no such averment. We are not inclined to accept it to be an inadvertent mistake, but a sheer case of irresponsibility on the part of the appellant in not placing the full facts before the Court. Under normal circumstances, we would have come down very harshly on the appellant, but we do not propose to do so because the appellant has now realized the mistake as mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant and that they would pursue the appellate remedy available to them as directed by the Writ Court. While admonishing the appellant for their conduct and directing them to be extremely careful while dealing with Court matters and not to come to any adverse notice of this Court on any future occasion, we refrain from imposing costs or making any other strong observation against the appellant - the writ appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Bench is confirmed. - W.A.No.775 of 2021 And C.M.P.No.4107 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2021 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, we admit the writ appeal after holding that the writ petition is maintainable and a decision could be taken on merits. 5. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the supplies effected by the appellant dealer from the Domestic Tariff Area to Special Economic Zone were exempted from excise duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The same issue has arisen in the dealer's case for earlier and subsequent periods and from the tabulation given below, it is seen that on those occasions, the dealer succeeded before the Tribunal : S.No Period Case status/remarks 1 OIO No. 24/10 dt. 23.11.2010 April 2006 to March 2009 Appeal allowed by CESTAT, Chennai, in Final Order No.40150/2018 dated 19.1.2018 2 OIO No. 25/10 dt.23.11.2010 April 2009 to February 2010 Appeal allowed by CESTAT, Chennai, in Final Order No.40150 /2018 dated dated 19.1.2018 3 OIO No.02/2011 dt. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petition namely W.P.No.40100 of 2016 filed by the appellant herein, the objection of the Department was that there is an alternate remedy available and that the writ petition should not be entertained. This objection was not sustained and the writ petition in W.P.No.40100 of 2016 was disposed of on 01.12.2016 in the following lines : 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is seen that though the respondent has extracted the objections given by the petitioner in the impugned order, wherein, the petitioner has referred to the notification as well as the Circular of the Commissioner. However, there is no reference to the same and the impugned order has been passed totally on a different ground and by observing that the clearances to Special Economic Zone are not mentioned in the ExCus Notification No.25/2016, dated 14.06.2016. However, what the respondent should have seen is, as to the effect of the notification dated 14.06.2016, apart from the circular, dated 11.02.2010, wherein, it has been stated that though the SEZ are not listed in the proviso (i) to (vi) of Notification No.67/95 as per CBEC Circular 29/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2016 in W.P.No.40100 of 2016 is pressed into service by the appellant herein, which was the writ petitioner therein and it is the same second respondent herein, who was the sole respondent in W.P.No.40100 of 2016. Therefore, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the order dated 01.12.2016 passed in W.P. No.40100 of 2016 was not complied with, which would give rise to an action under the Contempt of Courts Act. But, before doing anything further on those lines, one opportunity is granted to the second respondent herein to explain before this Court as to why the prayer sought for before us should not be allowed and more so when the Department, in the dealer's own case, accepted the orders passed by the Tribunal as set out in the above tabulation. Further, an affidavit shall be filed by the second respondent. 12. From the counter, which was filed in W.P.No.5454 of 2017, we find that the Assistant Commissioner, who had signed the counter, made a vague averment in paragraph 11 as regards the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal, which was wholly in favour of the appellant without specifically stating as to whether the Department filed any appeal. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Merits 2 OIO No.25/10 dt.23.11.2010 April 2009 to February 2010 Appeal allowed by CESTAT,Chennai,in Final Order No.40150/2018 dated 19.1.2018 On Review, the Final Order dated 19.1.2018 of Hon'ble CESTAT was accepted by the Commissioner on Merits 3 OIO No.02/2011 dt. 18.5.2011 March 2010-February 2011 Appeal allowed by CESTAT,Chennai,in Final Order No.40863-40865/2018 dated 09.03.2018 On Review, the Final Orders dated 09.3.2018 of Hon'ble CESTAT was accepted by the Commissioner on Merits 4 OIO No.36/2013 dt.14.10.201 3OIA No.19/2014 dt.10.11.2014 June 2011 to March 2012 Subject Matter of WP No.5454 of 2017 This is the subject matter of W.A.No. 775 of 2021 It is pertain to note that though in the present case Writ Petition was filed challenging the Order in appeal and not an order in original as found in all other cases. 5 OIONo.07/2013 dt.30.10.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Track No. ET353889431IN dated 05.12.2019. Therefore the averments of the petitioner that No further action has been taken incompliance with this Hon ble Courts Order is unwarranted. 5.I therefore submit that in the above background of facts this Hon ble Court may consider the present Writ Appeal and pass appropriate orders. Hence it is respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may pass appropriate orders as deemed fit in the circumstance of the cases and thus render justice. 5. In terms of the averments set out by the Additional Commissioner, we find that the submission made by the appellant, stating that no orders have been passed in terms of the directions issued in the earlier writ petition, is a false statement. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would plead that there is no mistake on the part of the counsel in making such a statement as the receipt of the order accepting the directions issued, was not informed by the client to the counsel and the counsel also genuinely believed the statement, because the affidavit, which was drafted in the writ petition, contained an averment that no orders were passed and this was signed by Mr.T.K.Ravi, son of K.Om ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
