2019 (3) TMI 1241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner and learned counsel Sri. S. N. Rajendra for respondents No.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2015 passed in F.No.01/92/71/23/AM-16/PC-VI/100, whereby the Appellate Authority has been pleased to upheld the order in revision passed by the Development Commissioner, Chchin Special Economic Zone (CSEZ), Bengaluru dated 08.01.2013.   3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was issued a letter of permission dated 08.10.2007, whereby the petitioner's unit was permitted to operate as an Export Oriented Unit in lieu of the scheme as envisaged under the Foreign Trade policy, 2004-09 in respect of the undertaking established by the petitioner in plot No.224-B, KIADB, Belur, Dhar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d for a period of three years and the petitioner was required to implement the project within that period and was also required to commence commercial production. Clause 6 reads as under: "vi. This Letter of Permission is valid for 3 years from its date of issue within which you should implement the project and commence commercial production and would automatically lapse if an application for the extension of validity is not made before the end of the said period. Date of commencement of commercial production shall be intimated to the Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone." 6. In view of the perceived non-compliance of the obligations arising under the Foreign Trade Policy and the obligations arising out of the Letter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter of Permission came to be cancelled with immediate effect and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed on account of non-fulfillment of the obligations arising under the Letter of Permission and aggrieved by that, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court after going through the finding of fact rendered by the order of the Original Authority has categorically held that the petitioner has not carried out any exports and the job works carried out by the petitioners do not amount to deemed export or that it cannot be construed to be deemed exports. Accordingly, it rejected the appeal. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.   9. There is no denying fact that the petitioner has failed to comply with any of the obli....