9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eign Trade Regulation and Development Act, 1992 with consequential relief of refund or alternatively quashing Ext.P2 letter dated 5.11.2019? HELD THAT:- No doubt, under the different provisions of the Act, an alternative remedy has been provided for the affected parties to seek the vindication of the grievances, if any, but the quasi judicial authorities are also legitimately expected to take the congnizance of the matter in correct perspective by giving due consideration to the respective contentions and the law cited at the Bar, but should not pass an order in a most mechanical and sketchy manner, which is reflected from the impugned order Ext.P1. Development Commissioner in his order submitted that if the credit is availed, leavy cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the ground of any provision in the Foreign Trade Regulation and Development Act, 1992 with consequential relief of refund or alternatively quashing Ext.P2 letter dated 5.11.2019. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: Petitioner, a private limited company, is engaged in the activity of manufacture of parts and accessories used for ATM machines (hereinafter referred as 'goods') classified under Chapter Heading 84 of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act,1985. It is an Export Oriented Unit (hereinafter called EOU)governed by Chapter 6 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14. Petitioner holds a letter of permission dated 16.02.2010 issued by Cochin Special Economic Zone, which was renewed from time to time. Certain clearances to NCR C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 10.01.2013 Ext.P11 was served, which was duly replied by Ext.P12 and accordingly, after affording opportunity of hearing vide order dated 11.02.2013 Ext.P13, claim was formally rejected. Petitioner preferred an appeal, the same has erroneously been rejected. 4. Mr.Ravi Raghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that against the impugned order Ext.P1, petitioner preferred a Review Application on 22.03.2014 Ext.P15 and several reminders. As there was no response, RTI applications were preferred by the petitioner seeking the status of Review Application. On such application was replied vide Ext.P19(a) dated 5.11.2019, though it enclosed a communication of 30.06.2014 rejecting the claim of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed, leavy certain, but if not availed, final goods are exempted, and in the absence of any provision of refund in the FTP, the case has been rejected. Once there was such finding, the Appellate Authority ought to have examined the matter in the background that it is a welfare State and the Department/ Government do not indulge into profit making. If inadvertently certain amount has been paid, even if there is no provision in the Foreign Trade Policy, Government cannot unduly retain the amount. For the reason aforementioned, the impugned order Ext.P1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority by reviving the appeal Ext.P14. Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law, by as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
