9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Petitioners Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. Anand Singh Mr. T.N. Tripathi i/b M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Co. for the Respondent ORDER P. C. 1. We have heard Mr. Andhyarujina for the petitioners at some length. We have also perused the impugned orders. 2. The petitioner No.1 claims that it had applied for licence under the Duty Exemption Scheme being a manufacturer exporter under Import-Export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. A legal undertaking was also submitted. The petitioners claim that on completion of all this, they were entitled to obtain Export Obligation Discharge Certificate. All the requirements in that behalf were complied with. The necessary proof of the goods having left Indian shores and reached the Port of destination in Vietnam and to an Indian consignee has thus been fulfilled. All that was not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such circumstances how the petitioner No.1 can successfully urge compliance with all the terms and conditions. There is no averment in the Memo of Appeal challenging the order-in-original that the export obligation, though cast on the petitioner, was fulfilled by the respondent No.5. The case of the petitioner being a supporting manufacturer is not borne out by the records. Even when an exparte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the above mentioned factual contradictions. The order passed is based on non-compliance and that has been established and proved. It is not for the authorities to go on waiting for the petitioners to produce the relevant proof. Since the petitioners relied upon the factum of export obligation being fulfilled, they were called upon to submit the bank realisation certificate. The doctrine of subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
