TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....electricity fans, etc. 2. As per the averments in the Petition, pursuant to a search conducted at the factory premises of the Petitioner, certain goods were recovered and seized which were unaccounted for in the books of accounts. The Petitioner paid duty along with the interest and penalty to close the matter. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 30.08.2016 was issued to the Petitioner, inter-alia, proposing confiscation of the seized goods and levying of a redemption fine and penalty on the Petitioner. 2.1. The Petitioner further averred that the allegations in the show cause notice were upheld and thereafter on Appeal, the Order-in-Original imposed a redemption fine on the Petitioner in respect of the goods seized. 2.2. It is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., requiring a detailed order of rejection from them. 7. The Petitioner has also filed the acknowledgement receipt of the Form SVLDR-1 issued by the Respondent No. 4, which is annexed as Annexure P-2. The said receipt shows that the receipt contains instructions/remarks by Respondent No. 4 for the Petitioner which read as follows: - W.P.(C) No. Application No. Date of Acknowledgement Receipts Relevant Extract of SVLDR-1 as filed (Annexure P-2): Remarks on page 1 in Column Relevant Extract of SVLDR-1 as filed (Annexure P-2): Remarks on page 2 in Column 9282/2022 LD1012190001536 10.12.2019 As per Chapter V of the Finance Act, the redemption fine is out of the purview of the SVLDRS Scheme SVLDRS-2 issued;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder was made available to the Petitioner on 25.12.2019 itself, but no action was taken thereafter. The only explanation provided by the Petitioner in this regard is in para 14 of his petition which reads as follows: - "14. That the petitioner also made a number of personal visits to the Central Excise Commissionerate but no speaking order has been supplied to the petitioner till date. Further, the petitioner were verbally told that the email dated 25.12.2019 was the only order on this issue." No document in support of the above averment has been filed by the Petitioner. 9. This averment in para 14 of the Petition is also contrary to Annexure P2 filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has, therefore, failed to explain why it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im is that during the intervening period rights of third parties may have crystallised and it will be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of a person who has approached the Court after long lapse of time and there is no cogent explanation for the delay. We may hasten to add that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and no straightjacket formula can be evolved for deciding the question of delay/laches and each case has to be decided on its own facts." "29. In Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar, this Court considered the question whether the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution after a long delay and laid down the following principles: (SCC pp. 629-30, p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing the procedure as set forth in the SVLDR Scheme. In fact, the Petitioner decided not to disclose these facts to the Court in its pleadings. Clearly, these details have been deliberately concealed by the Petitioner in the present Petition. 12. The Petitioner in support of his case, has filed certain judgments including three judgments of a coordinate Bench of this Court wherein a similar rejection under the SVLDR Scheme has been set aside and an opportunity of hearing has been given to the Petitioner. The judgments cited are as follows: - (1) Chaque Jour HR Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India; 2020 (372) E.L.T.522 (Del.) (2) Industrial Personnel & Security Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of CGST, Delhi South; 2020 ....