2012 (8) TMI 917

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Shri R. Dakshinamurthy, Advocate for K.S. Ravi Shankar, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The appellants have challenged the legality and correctness of the order, dated 27th of March 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 31887/2004 [2013 (292) E.L.T. 183 (Kar.)] 2. The facts leading to this appeal are as under: The respondent is a partnership firm engaged in manuf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l passed by the appellant was questioned by the respondent by filing an appeal, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed. 4. The learned Single Judge considering Annexure-B viz., the date of issuance of notification dated 1-4-1999 and having held that the materials were exported by the appellant prior to 1-4-1999 viz., on 3-11-1998 and 14-12-1998 respectively, base....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....exports of men's woollen jacket were made by the respondent on 3-11-1998 and 14-12-1998. In view of Annexure-B, it is clear that there is no prohibition for the respondent to claim benefit in respect of woollen jackets exported by it because what was prohibited is only on the silk garment textiles. The appellant having granted the benefit to the respondent has withdrawn the same based on the gener....