TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders fresh hearing and review of duty drawback approval. Petitioner granted representation period.</h1> <h3>ALSTOM INDIA LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> ALSTOM INDIA LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2015 (320) E.L.T. 446 (Guj.) Issues:Petition challenging impugned orders and instructions, powers of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, principles of natural justice, non-speaking order issue, fresh personal hearing, eligibility for duty drawback, provisional release of duty drawback amount.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned orders and instructions related to duty drawback. The main issue raised was regarding the powers of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (Jt. DGFT) in reviewing and recalling their earlier decisions on duty drawback approval and the eligibility of duty drawback under relevant policies. The petitioner contended that the subsequent decisions were against the principles of natural justice, and the communication of decisions was non-speaking orders. The respondents agreed to provide a fresh personal hearing to the petitioner and assured an independent decision by the DGFT without influence from previous decisions. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation supporting their claim for duty drawback within 15 days. The DGFT was instructed to conduct a personal hearing within four weeks and pass a fresh order independently within two weeks after the hearing. Both parties were allowed to present their contentions for consideration by the DGFT, with the option to challenge any adverse decision before the appropriate forum.This judgment addressed the procedural aspects of the case, ensuring that the petitioner's right to a fair hearing and independent decision-making by the DGFT were upheld. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice principles and directed the DGFT to act without influence from previous decisions. The petitioner was given an opportunity to present their case with a fresh detailed representation, and the DGFT was instructed to pass a speaking order after the personal hearing. The court kept all contentions open for both parties to be considered by the DGFT in accordance with the law. The judgment clarified that any adverse decision could be challenged before the appropriate forum, ensuring the petitioner's right to legal recourse. Overall, the judgment provided a fair and structured approach to resolving the issues raised by the petitioner regarding duty drawback eligibility and the review of previous decisions by the DGFT.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
