9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 24th December 2020. It is stated that the order came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation without appreciating the merit of the case. Against the said order, petitioner preferred a revision application before respondent No. 2 which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 18th September 2023. All these three orders are impugned in this petition. There is not even an attempt to explain the situation in this petition. There is no reference at all to this communication dated 19th November 2012 by petitioner or to the notice of personal hearing dated 19th October 2012. If petitioner had not addressed the said letter dated 19th November 2012, it is certain that would have been so stated in the petition. In the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 3; C. Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 to conduct fresh hearing on merits of Revision Application against Appeal No: MUM-CUSTM-AXP-APP-624/2020-2021 dated 24.12.2020 passed by Respondent No. 3. 3. Petitioner is an exporter who had exported goods under drawback scheme as provided under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 ( the said Act ). He claimed drawback for the exports made under various Shipping Bills between 1st April 2004 to 31st December 2008. A sum of Rs. 17,58,772/- was sanctioned as drawback under the Customs, Central Excise Duty and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. 4. It is petitioner s case that it never received a Demand-cum-Notice dated 15th May 2010 wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, petitioner preferred a revision application before respondent No. 2 which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 18th September 2023. All these three orders are impugned in this petition. 7. In all these three orders, it has been emphasized that petitioner has been lying and the stand taken by petitioner consistently before the three authorities, i.e., respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 and respondent no.4, and even before us, is that petitioner had no idea whatsoever of any adjudication proceedings. In all the three orders, there is reference to a letter dated 19th November 2012 from petitioner, in response to a personal hearing intimation dated 19th October 2012, by which petitioner had stated that the relevant documents would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRS. (supra), that was relied upon by Mr. Dada, are relevant in this context. The Court observed : The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court must come with clean hands . We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 12. Therefore, petition dismissed with cost in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs that petitioner shall pay to Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. If this amount is not paid within two weeks and compliance affidavit filed, respondents may recover this amount with @1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
