TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the appellate authority, and upon the appeal being rejected, they filed this petition. 2. Brief facts are as under : 2.1 The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company. Rest of the petitioners are its directors. The petitioner No. 1 company has established an industrial unit at Kandla Special Economic Zone ("KASEZ" for short). Noticing certain irregularities committed by the company, the competent authority issued a show cause notice dated 11-12-2013 to the company in which he proposed the following actions against the company. "Now therefore M/s. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 387, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham are hereby directed to show cause to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... area without payment of the customs duty which comes to Rs. 1,91,907/-. On the basis of such findings, he passed the following order. "In view of the above facts and circumstances on records and the provisions of SEZ Act, 2005 and SEZ Rules, 2006 and Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, in respect of show cause notice F. No. KASEZ/CUS/Inquiry-Safari Fine/2013-14/dated 11-12-2013 issued to M/s. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd., KASEZ - (i) I revoke the suspension of the Letter of Approval F. No. KASEZ/IA/ 1852/2001-02/9780, dated 5-10-2001 as amended from time to time, issued to M/s. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd., KASEZ which was suspended vide this office letter F. No. KASEZ/IA/1852/2001, dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; Shri Manmohan Singh (5) Shri Kamal Makkar (6) Shri Tarjit Singh (7) Shri Hatim H. Hamdani (8) Shri Anil Gupta All the duties and penalties should be deposited to Government exchequer within 30 days of receipt of this order." 3. As noted, the petitioners appealed against the said order of the competent authority. Such appeal was dismissed. Upon which this petition was filed. One of the prayers of the petitioners was to declare Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the FT(D&R) Act, 1992, as ultra vires under Article 14 of the Constitution. By an order dated 12-8-2016 we had held that such challenge is not valid. On other grounds of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice the competent authority raised the following three proposals. (i) Why the letter of approval granted to the company should not be cancelled for violation of the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005? (ii) Why the customs duty amounting to Rs. 1,91,907/- for diversion of the goods should not be recovered with interest? (iii) Why the penalty should not be imposed under the provisions of Rule 25 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 and under Section 9 of the FT(D&R) Act, 1992? 7. On the other hand, when the final order came to be passed the Development Commissioner did not cancel the approval of the company but let-off the company with a warning, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.97 crores (roun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f being given to defend himself. The show cause notice contained no proposal for any penalty under Section 11 of the FT(D&R) Act, 1992. It only contained a proposal for penalty under Rule 25 of the SEZ Rules and Section 9 of the FT(D&R) Act, 1992. Neither of these two provisions pertain to penalty. Rule 25 of the SEZ Rules has no relation to penalty whatsoever. If the reference in the notice was to Section 25 of the SEZ Act wrongly referred to the Rule 25, the said provision contained vicarious liability in case the offender is a company. Section 9 of the FT(D&R) Act, 1992, pertains to issuance of, suspension and cancellation of licences under which the competent authority has power to issue a licence or suspend the licence or cancel the sa....