9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. It is trite that concession given by an Advocate against the statute would not bind the litigant. However, it needs to be considered that though the estimated amount payable by the Petitioner under the Arrears category, was informed to the Petitioner on or about 27th January, 2020. The Petitioner did not take any steps against the same. There are no bona fide on the part of the Petitioner in offering to make payment nor the Petitioner approached this Court within a reasonable time - The Apex Court in case of M/S. YASHI CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER] , has confirmed the order of High Court, refusing to grant relief to the Petitioner therein for extension of period to make deposit under the sch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the then Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II gave remission of duty and ordered recovery of the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.22,73,611/- with penalty. Petitioner filed appeal before the before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal directed the Petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- as pre-deposit. The Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the Appeal and remanded the proceedings to the adjudicating authority. The adjudication upon show cause notice, as such was pending. In the interregnum, the Petitioner filed the Form under the SVLDR Scheme. The Respondents considered the Petitioner in Arrears category. The same is erroneous. The case of the Petitioner would fall under the Litigation category. The learned Counsel relies upon Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the parties. 7. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Munish Rajkumar Mahajan v/s. Union of India reported in 2022 (2) TMI 561. 8. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon the order of the Apex Court in the case of the M/s. Yashi Constructions v/s. Union of India in SLP No. 2070 of 2022 states that after the scheme is over, the cause of the Petitioner cannot be considered. 9. We have considered the submissions. It is stated that on 31st October, 2020, the scheme Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2019 has come to an end. On or about 27th January, 2020, the Form No. SVLDRS-3 was given and the Petitioner was directed to pay estima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
