9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of a refund application - Minimal request of the petitioner for a personal hearing and a speaking order dealing with all the contentions and objections could have been fulfilled had the respondents complied with the same - once the petitioner is given an opportunity of personal hearing and raising all contentions, then, a speaking order assigning reasons can be passed by the respondents dealing with them - It could not be that a cryptic communication satisfies the requirement of a proper and speaking order being passed - fresh order to be passed expeditiously as possible within a period of 8 weeks - Petition disposed of. - Writ Petitition No. 9607 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2014 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And A. K. Menon,JJ. For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.2) and communication Nos.(i) EOU/TED-70/November-2011/2011-2012/3896 dated 26.03.2013 (ii) EOU/TED-70/Nov-2011/2011-2012/6818 dated 20.06.2013 issued by Respondent No.4 and (II) to forthwith sanction and grant the Petitioner's refund of ₹ 6,87,89,737/- along with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum claimed vide application dated 8.8.2012. 2. The reliefs are claimed in the backdrop of the claim of refund by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) located at Verna, Goa and engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner states that they approached the authorities by referring to the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner's DTA unit on the goods supplied to the petitioner's export oriented unit. These applications were granted from time to time, except the application dated 8th August, 2013 for ₹ 6,87,89,737/- for the month of November, 2011, which is rejected by the authorities not by a speaking order and after hearing the petitioner but merely by two communications, copies of which are annexed to this writ petition at annexures D-1 and D-2 at page Nos.62 63. They read as under:- EOU/TED-70/November-2011/2011-12/3896 26.03.2013 M/s. Lupin Limited B-15, Phase-1A, Verna, Salcetta Goa-403772. Sub : Application for refund of TED claim for the period November-2011-reg. Sir, Kindly refer to your application date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat your above TED claim has been rejected as per the reason mentioned in our letter dated 26.03.2013 (copy enclosed). 3. We have heard Mr.Prakash Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. We have perused these communications. The argument of the petitioner is that no reliance could have been placed on the policy or any amendment to the existing policy which came into effect after the petitioner sought the necessary reliefs. The respondents, therefore, could not have addressed such communications in disposing of the refund application by relying on the policy circular dated 15th March, 2013. 5. We enquired from Mr.Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect the refund application or by relying on the same alone reject the same. 10. We are of the opinion that the rival contentions can be raised for being dealt with by the appropriate / competent authority. We need not consider the same and at this stage. We have no doubt in our mind that once the petitioner is given an opportunity of personal hearing and raising all contentions, then, a speaking order assigning reasons can be passed by the respondents dealing with them. It cannot be that a cryptic communication satisfies the requirement of a proper and speaking order being passed. Therefore, it would be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions, including that the policy circular, a copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
