2022 (4) TMI 951

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why the refund amount of Rs. 2,26,75,276/- sanctioned to the petitioners should not be recovered from them in terms of Section 28(4) along with applicable interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, and as to why the penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. It is case of the petitioners that the first petitioner was involved in import of yarn, polyester yarn and fabric, polyester film and other industrial items from various countries through various customs ports into India including the Chennai Seaport. It is submitted that during the Financial Years 2007-2008 to 2015-2016, the first petitioner imported goods under 162....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Name of Chartered Accountant / date of Certificate No. of Bills of Entry Refund Application No. / date Order in Original No. / date Refund Amount 1 Inderpal Marwah & Co. (05.05.2016) 58 2177/16 (26.05.2016) 48037/16 (22.06.2016) Rs. 71,07,735/- 2 Arun Vishwamitter & Associates (13.05.2016) 2 2250/17 (19.05.2017) 55853/17 (07.06.2017) Rs. 2,16,583/- 3 Inderpal Marwah & Co. (12.07.2016) 5 2976/16 (14.07.2016) 48888/16 (28.07.2016) Rs. 6,64,427/- 4 Arun Vishwamitter & Associates (02.09.2016) 49 3885/16 (09.09.2016) 56832/17 (15.02.2017) Rs. 1,46,86,531/- 5 Arun Vishwamitter & Associates (09.09.2016) 48 3904/16 (09.09.2016) Total Rs. 2,26,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....usly based on the false and fabricated documents. It is submitted that a refund which has been granted pursuant to an appealable order cannot be said to have been erroneously refunded. It is therefore prayed for quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice as it has been issued without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:- i. Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai, 2016 (337) E.L.T. 189 (Mad); ii. Commissioner of Customs Vs. Millat Fibers, 2011 (271) E.L.T. 512 (Guj.). iii. Madurai Power Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai-1, 2008 (229) E.L.T. 521 (Mad.) iv. Honda Siel Power Pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....017 (358) E.L.T. 101 (M.P.) xix.Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, 2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.) xx.Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S.T., Kolkata, 2016 (42) S.T.R.634 (Cal.) xxi.State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District Co-Op. MilK P. Union Ltd., 2007 (217) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.) xxii.Culcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District 1 Calcutta and Another, (1961) 2 SCR 241 : AIR 1961 SC 372 xxiii.East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.) xxiv.Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2016 (341) E.L.T. 110 (Del.) xxv.E.I.Dupont India Pvt. Ltd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w Cause Notice is without jurisdiction. Whether the petitioners have indeed indulged in submitting fraudulent and fabricated documents / certificates to wrongly claim refund of duty paid, is the subject matter of evidence. A Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the factual aspects. 16. The petitioners have to submit to the jurisdiction of the respondents by filing suitable reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice. If the petitioners suffer an adverse order, there is a hierarchy of the Appellate Authority under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the petitioners have to work out their remedy before the Authorities under the Act. There is no merit in the present Writ Petition. 17. The first respondent is....