Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (9) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ereby quashing the Order No. 674/2023-CUS(WZ)/ASRA/Mumbai, dated 18.09.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 2; B. Hon'b1e Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari thereby quashing the Order in Appeal No: MUM-CUSTM-AXP-APP-624/2020-2021 dated 24.12.2020 issued by Respondent No. 3; C. Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 to conduct fresh hearing on merits of Revision Application against Appeal No: MUM-CUSTM-AXP-APP-624/2020-2021 dated 24.12.2020 passed by Respondent No. 3." 3. Petitioner is an exporter who had exported goods under drawback scheme as provided under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the said Act"). He claimed drawback for the exports made under various Sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, filed an appeal under Section 128A of the Act before respondent No. 3. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 24th December 2020. It is stated that the order came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation without appreciating the merit of the case. Against the said order, petitioner preferred a revision application before respondent No. 2 which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 18th September 2023. All these three orders are impugned in this petition. 7. In all these three orders, it has been emphasized that petitioner has been lying and the stand taken by petitioner consistently before the three authorities, i.e., respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 and respondent no.4, and even before us, is that petitioner ....