TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, calling for the records of Order No. 185-189/2020-CUS(WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated 11.09.2020 along with corrigendum dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure I) and after looking into the same and the legality thereof, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside Order No. 185-189/2020-CUS(WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated 11.09.2020 along with corrigendum dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure I). (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition, or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or prohibition, prohibiting the Respondents by themselves, their servants and their agents from giving effect to and/or implementing the impugned Order No. 185-189/2020-CUS(WZ)/ASRA/ MUMBAI dated 11.09.2020 along with corrigendum dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure I); (c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents, their servants, agents, officers and subordinate, res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was gathered by the Officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise and Intelligence, Indore (for short "DGCEI"), wherein it was alleged that the merchant exporter exported Soya Meal and Soya De-oiled Cake falling under Tariff Item No. 23040020 and 23040030 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 from Kandla Port by availing benefit of Duty Drawback and the said DOC was purchased from the petitioner who manufactured by availing the benefit under Rule 19 (2) of the Rules by procuring Hexane without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 19 (2) of Rules and Notification issued thereunder from time to time. 5.6. It was alleged by the DGCEI that the petitioner procured Hexane without payment of Central Excise duty and the same were used in the manufacturing of DOC which was exported by claiming drawback at the rate of 1% of FOB value as per AIR drawback prescribed by Notification No. 81 of 2006-Customs dated 13.07.2006 read with Notification No. 68/2007-Custom dated 16.07.2007 which was superseded by Notification No. 103/2008 dated 29.08.2008. 5.7. On completion of the investigation, show-cause notice dated 04.10.2010 was issued by the DGCEI Indore, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enefit. 5.12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order-in-Appeal dated 03.09.2013, the respondent no. 3-Commissioner of Customs preferred the Revision Application before the Revisional Authority, Department of Revenue, Government of India. The Revisional Authority after adjudicating the order-in-original and order-in-appeal called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the revision application should not be allowed. 5.13. The petitioner by letter dated 29.04.2014 filed the reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Revisional Authority submitting the fact that the Order-in-Appeal dated 03.09.2013 has rightly been passed after considering the submissions and the legal positions as canvassed by the Petitioner. 5.14 The Revisional Authority however, by the impugned order dated 11.09.2020 allowed the Revision Application filed by the respondent no. 3 and restored the Order-in-Original dated 04.04.2013 confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed upon the petitioner. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Modh appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority while considering the issue of allowing the duty drawback at the rate of 1% to the mercha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DOC and therefore there is a clear breach of a Notification No. 103/2008 and prior Notification Nos. 81 of 2006 and 68 of 2007 wherein it is provided that the petitioner could not have failed to issue the Form ARE-2 while removing the DOC as the petitioner has availed the facility of Rule 19 (2) of the Rules. It was contended that as per the condition no. 7 (f) of the aforesaid notification, there is clear denial of drawback of the entire schedule of the Rules, if the said condition is not fulfilled. It was therefore submitted that the Revisional Authority has rightly held the petitioner responsible for not issuing the ARE-2 while confirming the penalty imposed in the order-in-original. 7.1. Learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta also referred to and relied upon the detailed reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority in the impugned order. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not issue the ARE-2 while removing the DOC manufactured by using the Hexane without payment of Central Excise duty. However, as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) such non-issuance of the ARE-2 would n....