AFLOAT TEXTILES (INDIA) LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, has passed an order on 2nd April, 2009 and 11th April, 2014, refusing to hear the petitioner's appeal on merits. That is how this writ petition is filed. Very brief facts need to be noted as the point raised in this petition is stated to be covered by the judgments to which we shall make a reference hereinafter.

(2.) THE petitioner is a manufacturer registered with the Central Excise and due to financial problems, it had filed an application with the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) set up under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to rehabilitate the petitioner -company in the year 2002. This Board was considering various schemes submitted by the company, but eventually concluded that the company is not viable. It, therefore, recommended winding up of the petitioner company in the month of November, 2006. In January, 2007, that was treated as an application by this Court for winding up of the petitioner company. The petitioner also states in Paragraph 7 of this petition as to how it stopped all activities, including production and giving a closure notice. It is stated that after the winding up proceedings were commenced, the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs passed an order on 1st February, 2007. That order resulted in the petitioner being visited with certain monetary liabilities.

(3.) THEN the petitioner approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal initially found that this is not a case where the request of the petitioner -appellant to grant a relief as prayed. Rather, in the Memo of this petition the petitioner averred that the petitioner could not remain present on the date and time when the Tribunal passed the initial order on 2nd April, 2009. However, we find that, that is not the order which could be the relevant one inasmuch as in the paper -book at pages 26 and 27, we have found that a single Member of the Zonal Branch, after the appeal was placed before her, passed the following order: