TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 3,35,49,250/-, petitioners preferred appeals before the CESTAT. There was a delay of 406 days in preferring the appeals and therefore, the petitioners submitted application to condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal by submitting that the authorised person of the Company advised that before filing an appeal, the Company will have to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty confirmed. However, he did not clarify that the Company can file an application before the learned tribunal requesting for waiver of the pre-deposit. It was submitted that since the Company was not in a position to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty, did not file an appeal within the period of limitation. That the learned tribunal was not satisfied with the explanation submitted in support of their prayer to condone the huge delay of 406 days and therefore, by the impugned order, the learned tribunal has dismissed the said application and has refused to condone the delay by observing that no justifiable reasons have been given for condoning he delay. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal in not condoning the delay of 406 days caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o issue the same on account that the petitioner No.1 - M/s.Archer Metals Ltd. was already existed at the given address and for the same premises, no other registration can be issued. It is submitted that thereafter again both the new entrants applied for the Central Excise Registration on 11/6/2013 but were not recommended, since the petitioner No.1 was still existed at the given address and holding Registration Certificate and also huge government dues were pending against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted that on 25/6/2013, surrendered the registration certificate of the petitioner No.1 through ACES, a departmental website and delivered a printed copy to the department on 26/6/2013 with the wrong declaration that "I/We also declare that there is no government due pending against us and that there is no demand pending against us under Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and rule made thereunder pending as on the date of surrendering the Registration Certificate. It is submitted that in fact the petitioner No.2 himself acknowledged the Order-in-Original No.71/Commr./2012 dated 19/21.11.2012 on 8/12/2012 under which the duty and penalties of Rs. 8.71 Crores was confirmed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sition to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty, they did not prefer appeal, cannot be accepted and is rightly not accepted by the learned tribunal. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that as such the aforesaid is not supported by any other evidence and/or affidavit of the concerned person. Even the conduct on the part of the petitioners so stated in the Affidavit-in- reply disentitles the petitioners to any discretionary relief in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In para 9 to 13 of the Affidavit-in-reply, it is stated as under :- "9. I say and submit that meanwhile, two Companies formed in the name of M/s.Neev Technocast Pvt. Ltd and M/s.Neev Metologies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "M/s. Neev Met & Tech") have applied for the issue of Central Excise registration on 13/1/2013, having common directors Shri Sagar Vinodbhai Parsana and Smt.Nisha Mohitbhai Parsana, for manufacturing of moulding patters and Aluminum Coil/foil at the address of M/s.Archer Metals Ltd. However, they were denied to issue the same on account that the petitioner No.1 M/s.Archer Metals Ltd. was already existed at the given address and for the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey No.84 - 84/3, 4 & 5/A, 84/3, 4 & 5/B, & 84/3, 4 & 5/C) to M/s.Neev Metologes Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Neev Technocast Pvt. Ltd. & Smt. Daxaben Vinodbhai Parsana, which were the close relative to each other OR to say in different words that the property was managed in such a way that nobody was to take care of Govt. dues and made them safe. (3) M/s.Archer Metals Ltd. with its director Shri Mohit Vinodbhai Parsana and Vinodbhai Tejabhai Parsana and the new formed companies M/s. Neev Met & Tech, with its Directors Shri Sagar Vinodbhai Parsana and Smt. Nisha Mohitbhai Parsana, common for both the companies were so closed relatives to each other. Shri Mohit Vinodbhai Parsana and Shri Vinodbhai Tejabhai Parsana, directors of M/s. Archer Metals Ltd. are the brother and husband and father and father-in-law of the directors in newly formed company, respectively. The third portion which was sold to Smt. Daxaben Vinodbhai Parsana, who happened to be wife and mother of the directors of M/s.Archer Metals Ltd., and mother and mother-in-law of the new formed companies directors, who also got used by these new formed companies for manufacturing activity by way of taking it on rent. (4) The same family ha....