TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 781
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of jewellery from its unit situated in Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ), Special Economic Zone, Andheri (East), Mumbai. In continuation of the earlier approval, the petitioner was issued a letter of approval on June 23, 2010 for manufacture and export of studded gold jewellery with CPD & polished diamonds/precious & semi-precious stones/silver gold under SEZ Scheme for a period of 5 years, i.e., 2010-2011 to 2014-15 for the effective period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2015 as per the provisions of Rule 19(6) of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 (for short "SEZ Rules"). Such approval was subject to terms and conditions, which interalia prescribed that the petitioner shall export goods as per the provisions of 2005 Act and rules made thereunder, for the period of 5 years and for this purpose, execute a bond-cum-legal undertaking as per SEZ Rules, 2006. Condition no. 2(ii) of the approval is relevant for the present proceedings, which prescribed that the petitioner should achieve positive Net Foreign Exchange (for short "NFE") as per the SEZ Rules, failing which the petitioner shall be liable for penal action under 1992 Act. The said condition reads thus: "2(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the petitioner had failed to carry out operations as per the requirement of law as prescribed and had not fulfilled its obligation on the export turnover and of the NFE as promised, as also the petitioner had furnished APR's giving incorrect information. 4. On August 17, 2015, the petitioner replied to the show cause notice interalia admitting that in the APR for 2010-11, 2011-12, 201213 there was negative NFE and the same had happened for the reason of amortization of capital goods. The petitioner also furnished other reasons for non-compliance of its obligations, which were interalia to the effect that the petitioner had total space of 2000 sq.ft. and it was difficult for it to install all the machineries and to make arrangement for employment of workers. The petitioner also put up a case of undertaking job works for other jewellery manufacturers. Another justification as set out by the petitioner was qua the market condition, namely, that the market accepted Chinese products which had affected production of jewellery. In paragraph 6 of the reply, the petitioner pointed out that its projections were made in anticipation and on the basis of market expectations, however, acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... original authority filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. By an order dated December 12, 2018, the Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's appeal observing that the appellant had not achieved positive NFE as mandated. The finding of the original authority that the petitioner had submitted APR giving incorrect information also came to be confirmed. The other contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner also did not find favour with the Appellate Authority. The petitioner thereafter approached the Review Committee. The Review Committee considered the written and oral submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner and passed a detailed order observing that the appellant had raised two fold contentions - firstly, that the appellate order be suitably amended so as to grant parity to the petitioner qua the amount of penalty as imposed on one Fine Star Diamonds and secondly, the appellant urged that the penalty amount be lessened. No other issue was urged. The Review Committee considering the record confirmed the findings as recorded by the earlier authorities, namely, that the appellant had admitted that NFE for the years 2010-11, 201112 and 2012-13 was in the negati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner are untenable. He submits that apart from the noncompliance of the mandatory conditions as prescribed under SEZ Rules and the letter of approval, the petitioner has also misled the authorities in not supplying correct information. Mr. Jetly would accordingly submit that the findings of fact as recorded by the original authority and confirmed by the appellate authority would not warrant any interference, as no case of any illegality or perversity on such orders is made out by the petitioner. Mr. Jetly hence prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders and the record, we are not persuaded to accept any of the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner for the reasons we record. The principal contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner necessarily is that the entire block period of 5 years ought to have lapsed and only then a show cause notice should have been issued for the entire period, for non-fulfilling the NFE conditions. This contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted considering the provisions of law an....