9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 347 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - denial of the deemed export benefit - the case at hand is similar to the one dealt with by this Court PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA 2015 (2) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that Department having clarified and interpreted its policy for the first time in March 2011, it could not have relied upon such clarification to reopen the concluded cases or review them as attempted. This is a clear case of afterthought - Though the Revenue would submit that it has approached the Hon ble Supreme Court of India challenging the same, nothing has been pointed out which would indicate that either the Judgment is quashed or set aside or no effect can be given to it in future cases - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice and demand letter seeking recovery of refund; Jurisdiction of Policy Interpretation Committee; Deemed export benefit entitlement. Analysis: The writ petition sought various reliefs, including the cancellation and withdrawal of the impugned Show Cause Notice and Demand Letter, as well as a declaration that the decision taken by the Policy Interpretation Committee was ultra vires. The Court noted similarities with a previous case and referred to a specific Judgment and Order. The petitioners argued that the denial of deemed export benefit and the recovery sought were without jurisdiction and illegal. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable, but also defended the Revenue's stand on merits, stating it was correct both factually and legally. Despite the Division Bench's ruling against the Revenue, the respondents stood by their position. The Court, after hearing both parties, found that the issue was already addressed in the previous Patel Engineering case. The Revenue's challenge in the higher court did not affect the validity of the previous judgment, leading the Court to uphold its earlier decision. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, relying on the precedent set by the Patel Engineering case. The rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioners, granting the relief sought in prayer clauses (a) and (b). No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
