9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.", the petitioner's name shall be substituted with "M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd." 2. Application stands allowed. W.P. (C) 7120/2001 3. In the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order of the Central Government - made in the revisional proceedings is impugned. The revisional authority held that the application made in the jurisdiction of the Maritime Commissioner where the export took place, for refund under Section 11B was time-barred in terms of the text of the Act. The revisional authority had relied upon few decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue that where refund claims are to be processed and adjudicated upon, the terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to which authority possess jurisdiction to grant the rebate and refund. He relied upon Circular No. 81/81/94-CX, dated 25-11-1994 which clarified by paragraph 2.4(b) that option to seek refund could be exercised either by filing an application before the jurisdictional Commissioner having primary authority in respect of the manufactured goods or the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the Airport, Ports etc. from where the goods were dispatched. Since the assessee/petitioner did not prefer the application and in fact approached the correct Commissioner after the time prescribed, the refund claim could not have been considered at all. 6. The judgment in The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, (1975) 4 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rveyed the law on the subject - including Parson Tools - and concluded that the period from the cause of action till institution of appellate or revisional proceedings from original proceedings - which proved to be abortive appeal should be excluded. 8. In this case, what the petitioners were seeking was neither revisional nor appellate relief. Rather they were seeking a benefit which was admissible to them in terms of a Statute and the Notifications issued thereunder. That they were liable to pay customs duty for the imports made is not disputed; that for such imports upon export of the ultimate produce, they were entitled to revision/rebate is also not in dispute; it is rather an entitlement. This rebate was premised upon sound publ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
