9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that the show cause notice was served on the petitioner, all the orders which have been passed by all the respondents against the petitioner required to be interfered with. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the first respondent 17.06.2015 ; the order of the 2nd respondent / Appellate Authority dated 25.07.2013 and the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 25.02.2013 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration, who shall issue notice to the petitioner; call for the documents, call the petitioner for personal hearing during which the petitioner is entitled to place all documents to prove that the amounts have been realised within the time s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lations, 2000 and Para 2.41 of the Export and Import Policy 2004-2009 and section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 evidencing the realisation of sale proceeds in respect of the shipping bills under which the goods were exported. In the order dated 25.02.2013, it has been stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 08.01.2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the drawback amount paid to them should not be recovered. The order proceeds to state that there was no response from the petitioner, personal hearing was offered and the personal hearing intimation was displayed in the Notice Board and there was no response. Therefore, the case was proceeded ex-parte. On appeal being filed before the 2nd respondent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of lapse of time, however if the Department has not been able to establish that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, then obviously, the impugned orders have to be set aside as the petitioner has been penalised without opportunity. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decision of the revisional authority, in the case of In re Modern Process Printers, reported in 2006 [204] ELT 632 [G.O.I], wherein the revisional authority has considered as to how the incentive oriented beneficial schemes should be implemented and while sanctioning rebate as to how the procedural deviations can be condoned. As already pointed out, since there is no proof to show that the show cause notice was served on the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
