2014 (4) TMI 1130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llegedly collected by the review applicant from the respondent, illegally. 2. We have heard Mr. R. Aravindan, learned Standing Counsel for the Review Applicants and Mr. Vijay Narayanan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent herein filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 2026 of 2013, seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the review applicant to refund an amount of Rs. 7.53 crores, allegedly collected, illegally, from the respondent company with interest. The main grievance of the respondent in their writ petition was that there was an inspection of the premises of the respondent by a team of officers from the Headquarters Anti-Evasion Wing on 14-9-2012. There was another inspection on 18-9-201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued by the quasi-judicial Authority viz., the first respondent herein, on or before 30-11-2013. (b)     the petitioner shall, thereafter, submit objections, if any, along with the documents within five days. (c)     It is further directed that after the submission of the objections and the documents, by the petitioner, the quasi-judicial Authority shall afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and pass final adjudication order within a period of one month thereafter. (d)     It is further directed that subject to the outcome of the final order, the above said sum of Rs. 7.53 crores paid by the petitioner shall be either refunded or adjusted towards the duty, however, s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r case. In view of such a contention, we summoned the records relating to the writ appeal and we also heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 10. Mr. Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the writ appeal was allowed even at the stage of admission. However, he contended that the writ appeal was allowed only after fully hearing the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for the review applicants. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent contended that there is no scope for review. 11. However, we are of the view that the grievance of the review applicants is fairly well founded. In Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Wea....