TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii. pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstance of the case including the award of exemplary costs to render justice." 2. Case of the petitioner No.2 is that, he being a Managing Director of petitioner No.1 a private limited company, had applied to the respondent No.3-Joint Director General of Foreign Trade for necessary Export Promotion Capital Goods ('EPCG' for short) license which was granted in terms of Proceedings No.7/21/021/01103/AM06 dated 02.02.2006 and relevant EPCG Authorization was also granted vide No. 0730003769 dated 02.02.2006. That the said licence and authorization was subject to conditions laid down in Chapter 5 of the Foreign Trade Policy and Procedures (Vol. 1) 2004-2009 and Customs Notification No.97/2004. 3. That using the said EPCG licence, it imported machineries through Inland Container Depot (ICD), Bangalore vide BOE No.121159 dated 17.05.2006 and the same was duly installed within the office premises of the petitioner No.1Company, same was also duly certified by Central Excise Department. Petitioner No.1 had obtained license amendment from the Office of respondent N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same, petitioners are before this Court. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits; (a) that it is settled position of law that any question or dispute arising out of and in connection with EPCG license and authorization has to be raised and dealt with only by Directorate General of Foreign Trade. The Director of Revenue Intelligence has no jurisdiction to take up the matter. (b) That admittedly, license was issued and due performance of the same had been accepted by the concerned authority resulting in issuance of EODC and discharge of the bank guarantee. Thereby the licensing authority had discharged all their obligations as per the Policy of 2004-2009. The Director of Revenue Intelligence therefore could not have reopened the matter without jurisdiction. (c) that initiation of proceedings and imposition of provisions of Section 111(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, to the facts of the case is unwarranted. (d) He also relies upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ELC PUYVAST (INDIA) PVT. Ltd. AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2025) 152 GSTR 616. Referring to paragraph 20(ix) of the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allenged the said proceedings. Since the admissibility of the said statement is provided under law, petitioner cannot now turn around and try to agitate on the merits of the case before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (g) that the role of licensing authority comes to an end the moment they issue discharge certificate as per Policy 5.13 and any fraud brought to the notice of the authorities will have to be adjudicated in the manner known to law which is done in the instant case. (h) that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions of he having complied strictly with the terms of the licence before the adjudicatory authority, the same will be considered in accordance with law. 8. Heard. Perused the records. 9. Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the mere issuance of show cause notice as per Annexure-Q by Respondent No.1 questioning his jurisdiction. 10. At the outset it is necessary to note, as rightly pointed by learned counsel for the respondent-authorities the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of ECL Puyvast (India) Pvt ltd., (supra), is inapplicable to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the respondent-authorities also referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of INTER GLOBE ENTERPRISES LTD., Vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2006(203) E.L.T 202 (Del). Para 13 of the said judgment read as under; "13. That apart the power of this Court to interfere in the pending investigation is limited to cases where the investigation itself is incompetent or malafide. Such incompetence may arise out of any statutory bar to the institution of the proceedings or their continuance generally or by any particular authority. No such statutory bar has, however, been pointed out to us that could render the on-going investigation incompetent for want of Jurisdiction. The issue of a certificate by the DGFT may also not be conclusive in such circumstances for any such certificate cannot circumscribe the power of the authority to reopen even a concluded matter if it is shown that such conclusion was vitiated by fraud, concealment of facts, misrepresentation or mis-declaration. We are supported in that view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 755. In that case the petition....