9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled of the benefit available to such units in respect of the exports effected by it during the period from 1-4-2003 to December 2004. 2. There appears to be some dispute as to the claim towards wastage generated during the course of manufacture which perhaps does put the petitioner under an obligation to show the corresponding export value. In respect of such dispute, particularly in the wake o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself was not adjudicated and the petitioner was issued with another show cause notice dated 27-3-2007 purporting to be in modification of the earlier show cause notice and revising the duty amount to Rs. 44,06,787/-, and a like proposal to levy interest and penalty. 5. It is the version of the petitioner that both the show cause notices have been replied. 6. It is the further case of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating the show cause notices; that the amount so recovered without a valid order is an amount which cannot be retained by the Revenue and, therefore, while the respondent should be directed to refund the amount, the show cause notices issued be quashed as they are not adjudicated and are only being used as a device to coerce the petitioner to make payment of certain amount of customs duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any unascertained amount, paid by way of customs duty or otherwise. 12. In so far as the show cause notice is concerned, if the proposal is not implemented, it can be never to the detriment of the petitioner as the show cause notice itself is for taking some adverse action and, therefore, there is no question of compelling any authority to take action. It is open to the petitioner to pursue the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
