TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02 48,17,939/- 9,70,606/- 928317/15.12.2005 1,02,11,486/- 20,57,172/- 929209/17.12.2005 1,08,40,687/- 27,02,746/- 932933/23.12.2005 80,69,011/- 16,25,556/- Total 3,39,39,123/- 73,56,080/- 2. Arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the show cause notice issued in the name of M/s.Fabritex Exports Pvt Ltd which has ceased to exists long before on account of mergers and de-mergers. 3. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- i) J.M.Baxi & Co. vs Commissioner of Customs, New Kandla, 2000(120)E.L.T.29 (S.C.) ii) Dharampal Lalchand Chug vs. Commissioner of C.Ex.Nashik, 2015(323)E.L.T.753 (Bom.,) iii) Madina (UZ) Impex vs. Union of India, 2019(368) E.L.T.555(Del.) iv) Government of India vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, 1989(42)E.L.T.515(S.C.) v) Spice Entertainment Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax reported in 2012 (280) E.L.T 43(Del), vi) CIT New Delhi V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he writ petition filed by M/s.Integra Garments & Textiles Ltd., needs to be dismissed as the Authorisation is to M/s. Fibritex Exports Pvt Ltd ". 7. That apart, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent would draw attention to the communications sent M/s.Fabritex Exports Pvt Ltd., on 13.08.2007, 21.01.2008 and 28.01.2008. 8. It is submitted that the said company had informed that there is a genuine difficulty and that they have undertaken to pay balance of the tax after remitting a sum of Rs. 13,35,036/-. 9. Defending the impugned order, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the first and third respondents would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is pre-mature. It is submitted that it is for the petitioner to reply to the impugned show cause notice. 10. That apart, it is submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the context of Section 28 of the Customs Act in the case of Varalakshmi Exports Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2021 (376) E.L.T.463 (Mad). A reference is made to Paragraph 18, 19 and 20, which reads as under:- 18. The demand of duty for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. 12. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mediwel Hospital & Healthcare Pvt Ltd reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 425 (S.C). He has also drawn attention to distinguish the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited reported in (2019) 107 taxmann.con 375 SC with a decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Mando Automative India Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, J.Sundararajan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 4 (1), 4th Floor, Main Building, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 600 034 reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 12514. 13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that M/s.Fabritex Exports Pvt.Ltd., had obtained Advance Authorization No.0710041662/30.11.2005 from ADGFT, Bangalore. The said Authorization was issued with a condition that the importer has to fulfill the export obligation as prescribed in the above said notification read with the conditions as prescribed in the Advance Authorization. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the first and second respondents further submits that as per the IEC data of DGFT, the second petitioner name is not appearing as Director of the Company or change in the name of the company. Therefore, the writ petition filed by M/s.Integra Garments & Textiles Ltd. It is submitted that the petitioners contention cannot be accepted as the Authorization holder i.e. M/s.Fibritex Exports Pvt.Ltd., have submitted the export documents for discharge of export obligation to the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade on 13.08.2007. On examining of export documents for discharge of obligation, it was found that the firm had unutilized excess import to the extent of 729672 sq.mtrs. Therefore, they were asked to regularise the excess import by payment of duty plus interest on unutilized imported fabric by this office letter dated 21.01.2008. 19. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the first and second respondent further submits that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted because the firm was given enough time to settle the issue on payment of duty plus interest on unutilized excess imports. But, however, the petitioner has....