TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the representation dated 21-10-2014 vide Annexure-D. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are engaged in the business of manufacture of fish oil, fish meal and export of the same from India. Under the Foreign Trade Policy administered by the respondents, the petitioners claimed duty credit under the Duty Exemption Pass Book (DEPB) under the policy. On 24-3-2009, the Policy Interpretation Committee, which is an advisory body to the first respondent, placed interpretation on relevant DEPB entry to hold that fish oil and fish meal are Value Added products and are to be covered by the said DEPB entry. Consequently, after November, 2009, the petitioners were denied DEPB ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. The petitioners have not availed the opportunity to be in person before the Appellate Board and denied all other averments as false. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petitions for not having exhausted the statutory appellate process under the 'Act'. 4. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri B.N. Gururaj, Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that impugned action of the respondents is erroneous, contrary to the material on record and are in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The notices vide Annexures-C, C1 and C2 seek to give retrospective effect to the interpretation placed by the PIC on the disputed entry. The petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the respondents and contended that the very writ petitions filed against the show cause notices issued by the second respondent are pre-mature and it is for the petitioners to file objections to the show cause notices and to consider the same and pass orders and therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacture of fish oil, fish meal and export of the same from India. On 24-3-2009, the PIC decided to exclude fish meal and fish oil from the scope of DEPB scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy. The first representation by the Trade body to the Minister of Commerce and Industr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Regulation) Act, 1992 or Rules issued thereunder. 9. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notices, they ought to have filed objections before the second respondent and it is for the second respondent to consider the objections and verify as to whether the decision of the PIC to exclude fish meal and fish oil from the scope of DEPB scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy, is in accordance with law. Before approaching the authority concerned, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned show cause notices. 10. It is well settled that the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices are not maintainable and it is for the petitioners to file objections and show cause to the second respondent as to ho....