Writ Petition No. 8773 of 2014. Case: Afloat Textiles (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 8773 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shah with Jas Sanghvi i/b. PDS Legal, Advs. and For Respondent: Shri A.S. Rao, Adv. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35B; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | 2015 (325) ELT 867 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | October 19, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, has passed an order on 2nd April, 2009 and 11th April, 2014, refusing to hear the petitioner''s appeal on merits. That is how this writ petition is filed.
-
Very brief facts need to be noted as the point raised in this petition is stated to be covered by the judgments to which we shall make a reference hereinafter.
-
The petitioner is a manufacturer registered with the Central Excise and due to financial problems, it had filed an application with the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) set up under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to rehabilitate the petitioner-company in the year 2002. This Board was considering various schemes submitted by the company, but eventually concluded that the company is not viable. It, therefore, recommended winding up of the petitioner company in the month of November, 2006. In January, 2007, that was treated as an application by this Court for winding up of the petitioner company. The petitioner also states in Paragraph 7 of this petition as to how it stopped all activities, including production and giving a closure notice. It is stated that after the winding up proceedings were commenced, the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs passed an order on 1st February, 2007. That order resulted in the petitioner being visited with certain monetary liabilities.
-
In the meanwhile the petitioner company was proceeded against by this Court and by an order dated 22nd March, 2007, a Provisional Liquidator came to be appointed. We are not concerned with the events that took place thereafter for the simple reason that the order passed on 1st February, 2007, by the Joint Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals). It was filed on 3rd September, 2007. It is stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dispose of the said appeal. That was disposed of, according to the petitioner, not on merits, but on the point that it was barred by limitation.
-
Then the petitioner approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal initially found that this is not a case where the request of the petitioner-appellant to grant a relief as prayed. Rather, in the Memo of this petition the petitioner averred that the petitioner could not remain present on the date and time when the Tribunal passed the initial order on 2nd April, 2009. However, we find that, that is not the order which could be the relevant one inasmuch as in the paper-book at pages 26 and 27, we have found that a single Member of the Zonal Branch, after the appeal was...
To continue reading
Request your trial