Writ Petition No. 8492 of 2014. Case: Afloat Textiles (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India. Bombay High Court
|Case Number:||Writ Petition No. 8492 of 2014|
|Party Name:||Afloat Textiles (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shah with Jas Sanghvi i/b PDS Legal. and For Respondent: Shri A.S. Rao, Adv.|
|Judges:||S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.|
|Citation:||2015 (325) ELT 719 (Bom)|
|Judgement Date:||July 30, 2015|
|Court:||Bombay High Court|
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "CESTAT"), West Zonal Bench, at Ahmedabad dated 7th April, 2014.
An application was made by the petitioner for restoration of appeal being Appeal No. E/2461/1999-DB. The restoration application is numbered E/ROA/22436 of 2013. In the restoration application, the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had filed an appeal arising out of the order-in-appeal dated 26th February, 2009. It is submitted by Mr. Shah and Mr. Sanghavi appearing for the petitioner that on two different dates viz. 17th October, 2008 and 2nd February, 2009, this appeal was heard in part. However, the petitioner could not be represented on these dates because an order of winding up was passed by this Court on 11th April, 2007 and a Provisional Liquidator came to be appointed. Annexure-D to this writ petition is a copy of the said order passed by this Court. The Court observed that the winding up order is required to be passed on the satisfaction reached by it. The order of winding up was in force from 22nd March, 2007, till 9th May, 2013. On 9th May, 2013, by an order passed on an application styled as an application for recalling the order of winding up and that of the appointment of the Official Liquidator, this Court allowed the same.
It is pursuant to such development that the petitioner-appellant sought restoration of the appeal before the CESTAT but by the impugned order the same has been dismissed.
The Tribunal essentially relied upon a communication addressed on 7th April, 2014, to the Tribunal''s Registry in which the petitioner requested for three months'' adjournment. That was prayed because the petitioner was required to pursue an application viz. Company Application No. 95 of 2014 filed in this Court. Since that application had some bearing on the winding up of the petitioner and certain pending proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction that this adjournment was sought.
The petitioner eventually succeeded in pursuing this Court to set aside the winding up order. It was set aside as well. In these circumstances the petitioner could not remain present to argue the restoration application. The restoration application also has been dismissed by the Tribunal and that is how the aggrieved petitioner-appellant in the appeal has...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL