9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities, but it was denied by the respondents and created alert and therefore, this is a disputed question of fact, which this Court is refrained to deal with the same and it is for the petitioner prove the same before the authorities. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case since the petitioner has been directed to submit the documents, which were admittedly pertaining to the period more than a decade ago, the difficulty expressed by the petitioner in retrieving the documents, appears reasonable and considering the same, this Court is of the view that the impugned order shall be set aside for the present and the petitioner is directed to produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with required documents apart from executing a bond with the Excise Department in Pondicherry. According to the petitioner, the said application was accepted. Theafter, the petitioner company exported the finished goods under the cover of export invoice by providing the details of export to the second respondent along with the corresponding details of imput materials originally imported duty-free and which were utilized towards the export consignment, giving cross-reference to bills of entries under which the goods were originally imported. It is also stated that whenever export could not be made within the stipulated period of six months, the petitioner company used to apply for extension of the period. The petitioner submitted the consump ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pies of permission obtained from the second respondent for allowing export beyond six months. Thereafter, on 7.11.2013, the second respondent issued a letter to the petitioner directing to produce the copies of requests made by the petitioner for extension of time for export beyond six months and copies of permission obtained for the same. While the petitioner was in the process of collecting the documents required, the first respondent once again created alert in the system for the very same reason, namely, non-submission of documents relating to imports made under the notification. By letter dated 10.1.2015 addressed to the first respondent, the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has complied with all conditions and sought for remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by issuing a show cause notice as per the provisions of the Act and without resorting the same, creating alert is arbitrary and illegal. 6. Though no counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, however, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents have been repeatedly asking the petitioner to clarify whether necessary permission was accorded to the petitioner for delay in re-export and submit all the documents pertaining to payment details with appropriate worksheet and copies of the permission so obtained from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. But the petitioner had not produced any records to substantiate its claim that after getting extension in respect of delayed exports, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No.32/97 for the period 2000 to 2004 by submitting the application to the second respondent along with required documents and also executed bond with the Excise Department in Podicherry in Customs, which was accepted and transmitted to the first respondent and the petitioner imported the goods from time to time by claiming exemption, within stipulated period of six months and wherever, there was delay, the petitioner obtained extension of the period and thereafter, it had made exports. 10. It is the case of the respondents that as per the Notification No.32/97, the petitioner had made certain re-export during the year 2000 to 2004 beyond the period of six months and thereby a Notice dated 16.9.2013 has been issued to the petitioner by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion will be initiated under Section 142 of the Act and that no more permission would be given. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 10.1.2015 to the first respondent, stating that the petitioner had already submitted the End Use Certificate to the Customs Department, Chennai in the year 2002/2004 itself and the same set of documents were once again submitted to the Customs authorities in October 2013 as well. While submitting documents in respect of 27 bills out of total 29 bills, the petitioner also stated that since the matter pertains to a period of more than 10 years old, retrieval of documents at Excise department is taking considerably long time and accordingly, requested 15 additional days to trace the balanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
