Enhanced composition fee demand cannot override pending extension proceedings and prior direction for prospective extension.

A pending request for extension of time to fulfil export obligation could not be reopened by demanding an enhanced composition fee after the petitioner had already paid the earlier accepted fee. Where prospective extension had already been directed for consideration, the Department was bound by that direction and could not impose a fresh monetary condition on a different footing to defeat it. The additional demand was therefore beyond authority and illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to prospective extension without any further fee demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for an enhanced composition fee and the consequent refusal to grant prospective extension of time for fulfilling the export obligation were legal.

Analysis: The application for extension of time had remained pending and the petitioner had already remitted the composition fee that was earlier accepted. After the Court had directed prospective consideration of extension, the Department could not reopen the matter on a different ground and demand a higher amount over and above what had already been paid. The impugned demand was therefore found to be contrary to the earlier directions and beyond the Department's authority in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The additional demand of composition fee was held to be without jurisdiction and illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to prospective extension of time without any further monetary demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Once extension proceedings are pending and the competent authority has already acted upon the request, it cannot demand a further composition fee on a different footing to defeat or circumvent an earlier judicial direction granting prospective extension.

---