TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Meerut in so far as concerns the petitioners seeking the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lacs each on the two petitioners under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 ^the act . The petitioners had a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 129(1) of the Act before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi tribunal and they did file separate appeals against the order imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lacs each. These appeals were, however, dismissed for non-prosecution on 4 November 1997. It transpires from the record that earlier on 19 September 1987, officers of the Directorate and Anti Evasion, Central Excise, New Delhi along with the officers of Central Excise, Meerut searched the premise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalties imposed upon the petitioners were also demanded from the Company. However, in the Company Petition it was clarified by the Delhi High Court that the Company was not required to pay the penalties imposed upon the petitioners and so the Department by letters dated 22 January 2013, 15 February 2013 and 3 April 2013 asked the petitioners to deposit the amount of penalty. It is at this stage that the petitioners filed the petition challenging the order dated 28 October 1988 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Meerut. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that this petition is highly belated and that the petition also deserves to be dismissed for the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the Court may consider imposing costs on the petitioners for the laches. Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, submitted that there was no reason as to why the petitioners should not have pursued the appeals before the Tribunal against the orders imposing penalty and even if the appeals had been dismissed for non-prosecution, nothing prevented the petitioners from filing an application for recall of the order. Learned counsel submitted that as the Managing Director and the Director of the Company and the petitioners could not have ignored the appeals even if it is assumed that the Department was requiring the Liquidator to deposit the due amount. The submission is that once they had ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ewise, the subsequent communication dated 31 December 2004 also does not make any reference to the names of the petitioners and it only refers to Dior and Kapri. There was, therefore, no reason for the petitioners to believe that the penalty that was imposed upon them was sought to be recovered from the Official Liquidator. The matter was only clarified by the Delhi High Court on 27 November 2012. Thus, the explanation offered by the petitioners to condone the laches does not convince the Court. Penalty was specifically imposed upon the two petitioners against which they had filed appeals. The Company had not filed appeals to ventilate the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioners as Managing Director and the Director of the Company sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned. In the instant case, as noted above, there is gross negligence, inaction and lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioners as the petitioners did not pursue the appeals which they had filed and permitted the appeals to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The enormous laches of about 25 years have not been satisfactorily explained at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioners would be left remediless because the records of the Tribunal have been weeded out and as such they cannot file an application for recalling of the order. This submission also does not appeal to the Court. The petitioners cannot be permitted to keep quiet for a long peri....