TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 984
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opment Commissioner SEEPZ Special Economic Zone, Andheri (E), Mumbai denying the petitioner benefit at 5% under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme ('MEIS' for short). It is further prayed that a suitable direction be issued to the respondents for release of the MEIS benefit applicable for the exports made by the petitioner from January, 2018 as per Annexure at Exhibit 'P'. 4. The facts of the case in brief are as under : The petitioner is a limited company having a 100% Export Oriented Unit ('EOU' for short) located at Boisar, District - Palghar. The petitioner is involved in the manufacture of various types of synthetic ropes. In case of export, shipping bill is filed claiming applicable and admissible expo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 8/1/2018. Apart from issuance of show cause notice, a letter dated 23rd April, 2018 was issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), JNPT, inter alia directing to withhold issuance of MEIS scrips. The personal hearing in the show cause notice dated 8/1/2018 was fixed before the 3rd respondent on 3/5/2018. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on 22/5/2018. 6. By various representations dated 13/3/2018, 5/4/2018, 29/5/2018 and 25/6/2018, made to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner requested him to release the benefit under MEIS since the clarification from the jurisdictional CGST office was already on record and as such withholding of the benefit availab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efit on the finally assessed shipping bills which have been allowed clearance after following due process of law by the officers of 3rd and 4th respondents and the assessments have attained finality. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 2nd respondent has simply endorsed and blindly followed the order­in­original dated 20/11/2018 passed by the 3rd respondent. According to learned counsel, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to contest the adjudication order dated 20/11/2018. Learned counsel would submit that the 2nd respondent had fixed the hearing on 25/9/2018 when it was contended that the shipping bills were finally assessed under the classifiable Tariff 56079090 from July 2017 onwards. Learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under MEIS benefits is decided, it cannot be said that there is any infirmity in the view taken. 14. According to Shri Jetly, the Customs authority is a proper authority to decide the classification under the Customs Tariff Act and the said power is not vested with the 2nd respondent. Therefore, once the issue of classification is finally settled by the competent Customs authority, issue of benefit under MEIS Scheme will also follow the order on classification. In the submission of Shri Jetly, there is no error whatsoever in the approach of the 2nd respondent. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have gone through the Petition, perused the annexures. We have also gone through ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed during the period April, 2015 to December, 2017 should not classified under heading 5607­4900 instead of 56079090. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide orderin­original dated 20/11/2018. The adjudicating authority inter alia held that the ropes exported during the period of April 2015 to December 2017 are to be classified under sub­heading 56074900 of the Customs Tariff as opposed to the customs subheading 56079090 adopted by the petitioners. Admittedly the petitioners have filed an appeal against the order­in­original before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Mumbai ('CESTAT' for short). 18. Thus according to the 4th respondent the composition of the goods is the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent to consider the Petition and its annexures as a representation of the petitioner and to pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioners. It is contended by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent awaited the orders on classification from the 3rd respondent and only then proceeded to decide the claim based on this order­in­original. 22. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing any final orders, the 2nd respondent should have given the petitioners an opportunity to deal with the order­in­original dated 20/11/2018. From the record it appears that the order­in­original dated 20/11/2018 was received by the petitioner only on 5/12/2018, that is after the impug....