JYOTI AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mayankar Singh, Counsel for the petitioner, Shri I.H. Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for Respondent No. 1, Shri Prashant Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 and Shri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 2 to 5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

(2.) According to the petitioner, on account of sudden demise of petitioner's husband and her father-in-law, the company, namely, M/s. Daylight Polymers Pvt. Ltd., in which Tubes, Pipes, Hoses and Fittings of plastic were manufactured, had become non-existent since November, 2000 and the same was also informed to the department. Subsequently, company premise was also sold but even knowing the aforesaid facts, competent authority had affixed a notice for alleged outstanding excise dues at the door of the company premise, which has already been sold. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ Petition No. 8482 of 2013 (M/B) This Court, vide judgment and order dated 18-9-2013, disposed of the writ petition with the direction that in case petitioner prefers an appeal within fifteen days from the date of the order along with an application for condonation of delay as well as application for interim relief, the appellate authority should consider and condone the delay in filing the appeal looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case and decide it on merit. It was also provided that the appellate authority should make earnest endeavour in deciding the application for interim relief within four weeks from the date of filing the appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is inclined to file an appeal in compliance of the order dated 18-9-2013 but no records pertaining to the case and the company is available with the petitioner on account of sudden demise of petitioner's father-in-law and her husband, who were looking after the day-to-day business activities of the company, therefore, the petitioner has preferred an application dated 26-9-2013 to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Lucknow for furnishing certain documents so that the petitioner can file an appeal in compliance of the order dated 18-9-2013 but no heed was paid by the Assistant Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.