2024 (8) TMI 1257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt No. 5 : Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate ORDER PER 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the Order in Original dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Respondent No.4 for financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17 as also the order dated 14.06.2024 passed in the Order in Appeal which has been dismissed on failure to make pre-deposit, have been sought to be quashed and set aside. 2. The further direction has been sought for quashing the garnishee notice dated 15.04.2024 which has been issued on the pretext of confirmation of the order passed by the original authority dated 09.05.2023. 3. The short point raised on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition without disputing the statutory command t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Bench of this Court, has submitted that in this case also he has already shown his willingness before the authority that led the petitioner to make a request to provide the details so that the pre-deposit amount be deposited but having not considered in positive direction and for that reason the writ petition has been filed, hence, he has sought for a similar direction to allow him to deposit the pre-deposit amount so that the appeal be heard on merit. 7. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, is fair enough to submit regarding the applicability of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 31.01.2023 in W.P.(T) No.4717 of 2022. 8. Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned counsel, has appeared on behalf of the respondent Ba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....direction for hearing of appeal on merit, for ready reference, the operative part of the order is being referred hereunder as :- "6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken into account the relevant material facts placed from the pleadings on record in the light of the limited relief now being pressed by the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner is an unregistered dealer. His appeal has been dismissed on the ground of non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit. It does not appear that there was intent on the part of the petitioner to avoid payment of pre-deposit @7.5% as provided under the amended section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Respondents have also adverted to the facility provided under the RBI In....