2017 (3) TMI 1399 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - denial of deemed export benefit - Recovery of duty drawback granted earlier - Revenue denied the benefit on the ground that the proceedings are pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India - Held that - the issue raised in this petition is fully covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Patel Engineering 2015 (2) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . 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. In such circumstances, we are bound by our Judgment delivered in Patel Engineering - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notices and demand letters seeking recovery of amounts, legality of decision by Policy Interpretation Committee, entitlement to deemed export benefit.

Analysis:
The writ petition sought various reliefs, including the cancellation and withdrawal of impugned show cause notices and demand letters, refund of wrongly recovered amounts, and a declaration regarding the decision of the Policy Interpretation Committee. The Court noted similarities with a previous case and referred to a judgment reported in 2014. The respondents sought to recover an amount from the petitioners due to their inclusion in the "Denied Entity List," which the petitioners refunded under protest. The petitioners argued that the denial of deemed export benefit and the recovery sought were without jurisdiction and illegal. The Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable, but also defended the Revenue's position on merits, citing a pending challenge in the Supreme Court against a Division Bench judgment. Despite arguments from both sides, the Court found the issue covered by the previous Division Bench judgment in Patel Engineering and upheld its decision.

The Court, after hearing both parties, concluded that the matter was already settled by the Division Bench judgment in Patel Engineering. The Revenue's challenge in the Supreme Court did not affect the binding nature of the previous judgment. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition based on the precedent set by the earlier case. The ruling made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners, granting the reliefs sought in prayer clauses (a) and (b) without imposing any costs.