TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter is however to export the goods without changing their contents. In this case fabric was imported. The writ petitioners allegedly used that fabric for the purpose of making pants and thereafter exported the pants. The obligation was that the writ petitioner shall manufacture and export the pants of the same fabric which he had imported from abroad. 2. The case of the revenue is that the imported fabric contained 52% of polyester, 45% cotton and 3% spandex. The sample of the pants exported was drawn. The test of the sample revealed that the pants contained 98% of cotton and 2% spandex yarn. 3. It is, therefore, amply clear that the goods imported were not utilised for the purpose of making those pants. The imported goods might have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed." 5. The certificate issued by the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade referred to by the writ petitioners reads as follows: " With reference to your letter No. SF/AL-DIS/04/50 dated 14.01.2005 on the above-mentioned subject, I am directed to inform you that export obligation has been fulfilled against the subject Advance licence, in terms of para 4.26 of the Hand Book procedures (Vol.-I). However, this shall not preclude the Customs Authority from taking any action against the licence holder for any misrepresentation/misdeclaration and default detected subsequently." 6. The authorities passed an order dated 24th Februany, 2014 confirming demand of a sum of Rs. 20,21,378/- and also interest under secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first petitioner within five years of February, 2005, the steps taken by the respondent authorities to recover the duty exemption afforded to the first petitioner cannot be permitted to continue. The show-cause notice dated July, 11, 2011, a copy whereof appears as Annexure P-8 to the petition at page 60 thereof, is set aside as being without jurisdiction. As a consequence, all steps taken pursuant to the show-cause notice, including the order-in-original dated February 26, 2014, are also set aside. W.P.12999 (W) of 2014 is allowed but without any order as to costs. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court will forward a copy of this order to the secretary in the Ministry of Finance for the matter to be referred to the Central Vigilance Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest is tenable but as regards the tenability of the claim for Rs. 20,21,378/- by virtue of forfeiture of the bond is concerned there can be no contention. The learned Judge did not realise this fact and passed the order under challenge which according to him, is totally bad in law. The learned Trial Judge should have left the parties to avail their remedies before the statutory forum rather than admitting and allowing the writ petition. He added further that the writ petitioners after having submitted to the jurisdiction of the authority by disclosing their defence on merits could not have invoked the writ jurisdiction for the purpose of challenging the show-cause notice. He submitted that the order is patently bad and should be set as....