9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Annexure P.13 whereby respondent No.3 -Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi has confirmed demand of duty drawback even for the period prior to five years. Further prayer has been made for stay of the impugned order during the pendency of the present writ petition. 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No.22829 of 2018 may be noticed. The petitioner - a partnership concern having its office at Ludhiana is engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments. The petitioner unit was established in the year 1996 and started export in the year 2000. The petitioner as per prescribed procedure, exported goods claiming benefit of drawback in the shipping bill itself. Mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to release drawback benefits. Vide order dated 12.9.2013, Annexure P.7, this Court directed DRI, Ludhiana to decide claim of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 17.10.2013, Annexure P.8, the DRI informed the petitioner that they had issued no objection certificate to the customs. Accordingly, the customs authorities released duty drawback benefits. During search, the DRI recovered print out of few emails which indicated that the petitioner had issued parallel invoices showing value of goods lower than the value declared before customs. As per overseas report, the value declared before Indian customs was 3 to 17 times more than the value declared before UAE customs. Respondent No.3 on the basis of investigation concluded that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l against the impugned order. 6. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013) 357 ITR 357, considered the question of entertaining writ petition where alternative statutory remedy was available. After examining the relevant case law on the point, it was recorded as under:- "14. In the instant case, the only question which arises for our consideration and decision is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by the assessing authority under Section 148 of the Act in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 when an equally efficacious alternate remedy was available to the assessee under the Act. 15. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. (See: N.T. Veluswami Thevar vs. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422; Municipal Council, Khurai vs. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653; Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436; S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up." 13. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 this Court observed: (SCC pp. 440-41, para 11) "11. ... It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford, 141 ER 486 in the following passage: (ER p. 495) '... There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon a statute. ... But there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment.""(See: G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472; Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 3 SCC 5; C.A. Abraham v. ITO, (1961) 2 SCR 765; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312; Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1998) 8 SCC 272; Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, (2001) 6 SCC 569) 18. In Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
