2010 (7) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....first application. It is stated that there is delay of 5 days in filing and 11 days in refiling the appeal. 2. There is history of frivolous proceedings initiated by the appellant before he filed the present appeal. In this appeal though the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal), which was passed on 21.11.2005. However, no appeal was preferred immediately thereafter. One writ petition challenging that order was filed much belatedly in February, 2007. This writ petition was returned under objection on 09.02.2007. The appellant took substantial time in removing those objections, as the writ petition was returned under objections four times. When ultimately, the writ peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. At his request, matter was adjourned to 28.10.2009. However, this time the Court categorically observed while adjourning the case that no further adjournment shall be granted. Notwithstanding specific orders on the last date, the appellant did not even chose to appear on 28.10.2009. 3. In these circumstances, the following order was passed: "Learned counsel for the Appellant has not appeared even on the second call. Order sheet shows that the Appellant has been taking repeated adjournments and on the last date while giving last opportunity to the Appellant it was made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted. In these circumstances, we have left with no alternative but to dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution and non-appearan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld that M/s Himgiri Overseas and M/s Deepshikha Overseas in making a false claim for duty drawback. Such duty drawback was obtained by the aforesaid firms from the Government against some readymade garments exports, but it was ultimately found that the consignment contained only rags and not the readymade garments, which was supposed to be exported. When the proceedings were initiated against the aforesaid company and the appellant was implicated and arrayed in those proceedings keeping in view his role, he made a statement before the concerned Officer that it is he who had created the aforesaid false firms to withdraw the drawback claim and this fact was categorically admitted by him. He also in his statement submitted that he was doing so....