2018 (1) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed by the Respondent Nos. 4 & 3 respectively may also please be quashed and set aside. (ii)    Any other appropriate relief may be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction." 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are a company having the business of export of ready-made garments. The petitioner is said to have exported garments worth US $ 10,44,400 of which US $ 40,000 stood realised and had received Duty Drawback of Rs. 32,81,895.00 of which Rs. 1,26,079.00 pertained to the realized Export proceeds and Rs. 31,55,816.00 to unrealized exports. 3. The Assistant Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs submits that for the present, the petitioners are not desirous of pressing the prayer for interim relief. 8. The prayer for interim relief is, accordingly, rejected." 5. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Rule which was sought to be noticed was issued and the reasonings which were adopted by the first authority in para 11 reads as under: "11. Now, therefore, M/s. Vinayaka Images (P) Ltd. Dikshit Bhawan, Hawa Sadak Jaipur and its Director Sh. Sanjeev Saraogi who looked after the activities of the company are called upon in terms of Rule 16A of the Customs & Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 to produce before the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Sanganer Jaipur the proof of real....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in this respect, the High Court was in complete agreement with the order, dated 11-6-1999 passed by the Central Government in the appellant's revision petition. The said order has attained finality with the dismissal of the Civil Appeal filed by the Government. It was further held that the order, dated 12-6-2003 passed by the authorities has also rightly directed the refund to the appellant of the excise component of the drawback as well as the interest charged thereon. It was further held that although the above substantive provision was introduced by the Finance Act, 1991, with effect from 27-12-1991, there is no corresponding provision in the duty Drawback Rules, 1971. The Department would, therefore, have to fall back on Section 142(1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed the contention of the petitioners which is based on rules which were not applicable when he had done export. The export was done between March, 1995 to May, 1995. The rules came into force on 26-5-1995. Therefore, the contention that during the period from March, 1995 to May, 1995 when the export was done he was not entitled to the duty drawback on 26-5-1995. The complete case of the department was based on the extension which was granted for the recovery of the export was extended up to 13-11-1996 during which he has received payment. In that view of the matter, the extension period which he is not received the amount and the main contention in view of the fact even he has not received foreign exchange and the very purpose of the duty ....