TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay in re-filing) & 16113/2014 (for filing additional documents) 3. This intra Court appeal impugns the order dated 11th August, 2008 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P. (C) No. 1813/2007 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed impugning the order dated 30th November, 2006 of the Second Appellate Committee, Government of India, Ministry of Textiles (IT Section) dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the order dated 19th October, 2006 of the First Appellate Committee, Government of India, Office of the Textiles Commissioner dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the speaking order dated 15th September, 2005 of the Joint Commissioner of the respondent No. 2 Apparel Export Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-filing of the appeal. 7. We have at the outset enquired from the counsel for the appellant that there being concurrent finding of fact of the three statutory authorities as well as of the learned Single Judge, of the appellant being in non-performance/non-compliance of Past Performance Entitlement quota allocated to it for exports in the year 2004, how is it open to the appellant in this LPA to agitate the said factual controversy. We may notice that it is not the argument of the appellant that the authorities which have imposed the said penalty on the appellant were not competent or empowered to do so. There is no dispute as to the quantum of the penalty imposed also. 8. The counsel for the appellant though unable to controver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant/writ petitioner. From a reading of the order dated 15th September, 2005 supra also, we do not find the appellant to have taken any such ground in the reply. 10. Though the appellant even before us has not furnished the copy of the said reply dated 15th September, 2005 but the counsel for the appellant has in this regard drawn our attention to the order dated 19th October, 2006 of the First Appellate Committee where the plea of the appellant of the short shipment being due to Embargo Cat. 338 is noticed. We may however note that the said contention was not accepted by the First Appellate Committee. We may further notice that even the Second Appellate Committee held that there is no justification in the said contention of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utory authorities below as well as by the learned Single Judge, is of the unfulfilled quota being not of export which was banned and on which aspect nothing has been produced by the appellant before us also. 12. Be that as it may, the same also as aforesaid, is a question of fact and which finding we cannot revisit in this jurisdiction after the concurrent findings in this respect of the two statutory authorities below and the learned Single Judge of this Court. 13. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 AEPC has drawn our attention to Gokaldas Images Ltd. v. Union of India - 116 (2005) DLT 47 = 2006 (193) E.L.T. 264 (Del.) = 2007 (7) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.) holding that when an exporter gets an entitlement, the same is with the condition....