TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... export of Stainless Steel articles. The petitioner had filed 7 Shipping Bills for claim of drawback for Rs. 9,86,263/- in terms of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Draw Back Rules, 1995 read with Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent had kept the said drawback claim in abeyance without processing the same on the grounds that the department had received a letter in F.No.INT/DGCEI/CHZU/88/2004 dated 06.10.2005 from the Directorate General of the Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Chennai stating that the petitioner had effected fictitious exports and had fraudulently claimed duty drawback running into crores of rupees. As the subject drawback claims vis-a-vis the shipping bills were not the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....EI), Coimbatore and that while conducting investigation against the exporters of Stainless Steel utensils, they had noticed that the exporters have effected fictitious exports and had fraudulently claimed duty drawback running into crores of rupees and they have adopted the same modus operandi and had operated at different ports. Hence, the Directorate has directed the respondent office to keep pending the drawback claims filed by some of the exporters, namely, M/s.Samy Metal Industries, M/s Ayyappan Industries, M/s.J.S.Babu Inc and M/s.Parmer Exports, the petitioner herein. Further, the Docks Intelligence Unit detected a Drawback offence during April 2006 in the name of M/s.Sunitha Metal Corporation & M/s.Ajay Exports, wherein,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the investigation agencies. Therefore, at this point of time, if the drawback claim is admitted, then there may be loss to Government exchequer, which may prejudice the rights of the respondent. Learned counsel has also pointed out that in the impugned order itself, there is a clear indication that against the order impugned, an appeal would lie to the Commissioner (Appeals), Custom House, Chennai within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and the relevant materials placed before this court. 8. In this case, it is seen that the petitioner is a Partnership firm engaged in the export of Stai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 10. In the counter affidavit, it is not clear as to whether the Intelligence Unit has completed the investigation and the report has been filed. But, it is seen that the original authority has passed the impugned order pending investigation of the matter by the Docks Intelligence Unit. It is clearly stated therein that the investigation by the Docks Intelligence Unit, DGCEI is still under progress and report is awaited from the investigation agencies. As it is vividly mentioned in the impugned order that the eligibility of the Drawback claims are subject to the verification of Bank Realisation Certificate issued by the Foreign Exchange dealing Ban....