9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dara Regional Unit, Vadodara issued vide letter dtd. 12/10/2012 from F.No.DGCEI/AZU/12(4)134/2012- 13. (b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus / Prohibition or in the nature of mandamus / Prohibition quashing and setting aside the investigation initiated by the office of the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence of Vadodara. (c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition your Lordships be pleased to stay further proceedings pursuant to direction of the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence of Vadodara Regional Unit, Vadodara issued vide letter dtd. 12.10.2010 from F.No.DGCEI / AZU /12 (4) 134 / 2012-13. (d) Such other and further relief as deemed just and expedient be granted. (e) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such the petitioner rightly classified the goods in question under Tariff Item No.732616 and claimed drawback at 4%. Mr.Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also made grievance that earlier order passed by this Court dtd. 8/5/2013 directing the respondents to process the pending drawback claims of the petitioner at least at the rate of 2% on appropriate value of the exports subject to complying with the requirements under the rules and regulations, has not been complied with by the respondent authority. 3.00. Mr.R.J. Oza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 has submitted that Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, more particularly when the investigation as to whether the goods in question fall under Tariff Item No.848221 or under Tariff Item No.732616 is going on and the investigation is yet not concluded, as such there cannot be any recovery from the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner misclassified the goods under Tariff Item No.732616 and wrongly claimed / got drawback at 4%. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that if Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence - respondent No.3 is directed to conclude the investigation on or before 30th July, 2013 (as requested by Mr.Oza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3) and in case, after the investigation if it is found that the goods in questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the respondent, more particularly respondent No.2 was directed to process the pending drawback claims of the petitioner at the rate of 2% on appropriate value of the exports subject to complying with the requirements under the rules and regulations and if it found that the petitioner has complied with the requirements under rules and regulations, shall pay drawback to the petitioner at the rate of 2% on appropriate value of the exports, within a period of one week from today without fail, failing which the respondent No.2 shall entail himself to contempt proceedings. (iv) The amount of Rs.40 Lacs which is already recovered by the respondent No.2 from the petitioner shall be adjusted, subject to ultimate outcome of the investigation / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
