Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6988/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6988 of 2009
=========================================
VIJAY
BABURAO PETKAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR ANIL N
MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 19/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
The
petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and
order dated 6.10.2008 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal and the order dated 21.6.2004 as well as the order
dated 23.6.2006 (Annexure F and Annex. G, respectively).
This
matter was called out in the first as well as in the second session.
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.
The
Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal
observing in his order that as per sub-sec. (3) of sec. 85 of the
Finance Act, 1994, the appeal is required to be filed within 3 months
from the date of receipt of the decision/order. In the present case,
the order-in-original was received by the appellant on 23.6.2004 and
the appeal has been filed on 25.1.2006, i.e., after lapse of 18
months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal has not been
filed within the time limit prescribed under Sec. 85 of the Finance
Act, 1994 and hence the appeal was dismissed.
This
order was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide its
order dated 6.10.2008, dismissed the said appeal confirming the order
passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals). While
confirming the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals),
the Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of M/s. Singh Enterprises v. CCE Jamshedpur, 2008 (221) ELT 163
(SC). This order of the Tribunal is challenged in the present writ
petition.
Apart
from the merits of the matter, the impugned order can be challenged
by the petitioner in a tax appeal before this court. Since an
alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, we do not want to
exercise our jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of
India.
This
petition is, therefore, dismissed.
K.A.
Puj, J.)
(Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.)
(hn)
Top