TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er & P.R. Prasanth, SCs and Girish Kumar V., CGC, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The petitioner had imported a consignment of 'Boswellia gum against an advance licence dated 11-8-2011, issued by the 3rd respondent. As per the said advance licence, the petitioner was to discharge an export obligation worth Rs. 25,48,000/- before 10-8-2014, for the purposes of getting the benefit of concessional rat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Ext. P2 is the order of the 2nd respondent confirming a duty demand of Rs. 6,87,366/- along with applicable interest, on the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the 2nd respondent proceeded to act with undue haste in confirming the differential duty demand on the petitioner, more so, when the petitioner was pursuing the matter with the 3rd respondent for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had to be strictly construed, the petitioner could not get the benefit of concessional rate of duty, when he had not complied with the requisite procedural conditions that were insisted upon in the notification granting the concessional rate of duty. In a statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is stated that, although initially the norms committee under the Director General Authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.R. Sreejith, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Girish Kumar, the learned Central Government Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find from a perusal of Exts. P2 and P5 orders that the confirmation of the demand of different....