9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of the system evolved which failed to accept the payment. The impugned orders passed and the communication stands quashed by permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts in respect of which attempt was made by the petitioner to pay through the 5th respondent RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) facility on 29.03.2020 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order - If the petitioner pays the aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondent shall bring a closure to the case of the petitioner by accepting the payment subject to the petitioner fulfilling other conditions of the scheme. Petition disposed off. - W.P.Nos.1074 & 1077 of 2021 And W.M.P.No.1195 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2022 - Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner in both W.Ps. : Mr.G.Derrick Sam For the R1 to R4in both W.Ps. : Mr.Umesh Rao Senior Central Government Standing Counsel For the R5 in W.P.No.1074/2021 : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran COMMON ORDER The petitioner is a Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited and has filed these writ petitions challenging the communication dated 23.09.2020 bearing ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the aforesaid development and came to know only after the second mention Order-in -Appeal No.50 of 2020-CE - Appeal No.15 of 2019-CE was passed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs.9,79,020.70/- vide UTR No.SBIN120177558763 was paid by the petitioner much before the expiry of the time prescribed on 25.06.2020, and since the petitioner was unaware of the above portal, the petitioner cannot be penalized and denied the benefit of the aforesaid scheme. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact that the amount had been re-credited to the petitioner's account came to the knowledge of the petitioner only when the petitioner attempted to take a chance in the personal hearing fixed for hearing in the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise. 10. Opposing the prayer, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that the scheme is very specific and in terms of Section 127(5), a declarant has to make payment electronically through Internet banking on the amount payable as indicated in the statement issued by the Designated Authority within a period of thirty days from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the petitioner on 25.06.2020 which was re-credited immediately. 15. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent further submits that illustration to Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that mere averment in the affidavit is not sufficient and it is for the petitioner to prove that the amount has not been re-credited to the petitioner's bank account. 16. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to Section 114 Sub-Clause f of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as follows: 114 Court may presume existence of certain facts. -The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations The Court may presume - (a)That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession; (b)That an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars; (c)That a bill of exchange, accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en posted, but the usual course of the post was interrupted by disturbances; As to illustration (g)-A man refuses to produce a document which would bear on a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but which might also injure the feelings and reputation of his family; As to illustration (h)-A man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it might cause loss to him in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to which it is asked; As to illustration (i)-A bond is in possession of the obliger, but the circumstances of the case are such that he may have stolen it. (i)There would be presumption in favour of wedlock if the partners lived together for long spell as husband and wife; but it would be rebuttable and heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place; Tulsa v. Durghatiya, 2008 (1) SCR 709: 2008 (4) SCC 520. (ii)Presumption is rebuttable. If there is any such circumstance weakening such presumption, it cannot be ignored by the court; Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy, AIR 2005 SC 800. (iii)When oral and other reliable e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Category 1. SCN No.SOD Sl.No.55/2013 C.Ex(ADC) dated 06.09.2013 LD30121900133 99 dated 30.12.2019 LD80220SV30 0944 dated 28.02.2020 563398.80 Litigation 2 15/2019-CE dated 08.06.2019 Commissioner (Appeals) LD1201200000198 dated 12.01.2020 L290220SV301772 dated 29.02.2020 41331.20 Litigation 3. SCN No.SOD Sl.No.36/2014 C.Ex.(JC) dated 13.06.2014 LD3012190012968 dated 30.12.2019 L280220SV300949 dated 28.02.2020 219808.80 Litigation 4. C.No.V/15/17/34/2 012 Cx.Adj. dated 01.10.2012 LD3012190011732 dated 30.12.2019 L280220SV300942 dated 28.02.2020 148925.10 Litigation 5. Order No.03/2017 dated 12.05.2017 issued by Exe.Adj. Authority LD30121900154 57 dated 30.12.2019 L280220SV300 952 dated 28.02.2020 5564.80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
