9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Though in this case the respondent has been served as early as on 31-3-94, there is no representation on behalf of them till this date. 3.Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have perused the contents of the affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers, I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of their arguments. Since there is no representation on behalf of the respondent and since there is no counter as well, the matter has to be decided on merits. 4.I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be used as such only in respect of M/s. Rita Agency, the petitioners have fully manufactured the goods with their own raw material and the quantities of turnover is much below the exemption limit. As the Job work done by the petitioner is below the exemption limit, the petitioner did not take out any licence under the bona fide belief that it is not required, on 29-8-90, the officers attached to the Headquarters preventive. Central Excise Department inspected the petitioner's premises and seized the account books etc. On 27-2-91, the Collector of Central Excise issued a show cause notice stating that during the years 1986-87 to 1989-90, the petitioner have manufactured and cleared parts of bottle filling machines and parts of conveye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated in the earlier conditional order. Since the petitioner could not comply with the order, on 30-10-92 the respondent seems to have dismissed the appeal itself under Order No. 539/92. The said order was communicated to the petitioner's counsel on 7-1-93. Thereafter a petition to dispense with the pre-deposit was filed on 24-11-92 in petition E/Ros/866/93 in E/Stay/147/92. The respondent herein by its order dated 7-4-93 had dismissed the said application since the pre-deposit has not been made in terms of the conditional order. However, the respondent made an observation that it is open to the petitioner to make the pre-deposit and take out an application for early hearing of the appeal. But the respondent herein had not considered the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot, since the respondent had failed to consider the claims of the petitioner on merits, the petitioner has no other alternate remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 6.Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the claims of the petitioner herein it is admitted even by the petitioner herein that on 29-8-90, the authorities inspected the petitioner's premises and seized the account books etc. Thereafter on 27-2-91 show cause notice was issued and the petitioner also replied on 15-7-91 and subsequently the Collector of Central Excise heard the counsel of the petitioner and on 27-9-91, he passed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition contending that the respondent herein had not considered the claim of the petitioner for dispensing with the pre-deposit and that the order has been passed by the respondent without considering the representation of the petitioner and also that as such the order dated 7-4-93 is initiated on the principles of non-application of mind. In the above facts and circumstances of the case on hand such contention of the petitioner herein cannot at all be accepted. Because it is significant to note that in the same order the respondent had made an observation to the effect that it is open to the petitioner to make the pre-deposit and take out an application for early hearing of the appeal. Without doing so, the petitioner herein has rushed to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut whether the difficulties placed before the authority are genuine and required consideration or not. But in this case on hand it has been proved that even after availing so many opportunities given by the authorities, the petitioner herein has failed to make substantial payment towards the pre-deposit or atleast the amount fixed by the authorities to grant stay of the order of the lower authority. In such circumstances of this case, the above decision is not in any way helpful to the petitioner herein. Thus the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. 8.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently MP. No. 14444 of 93 also is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
