9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the matter with regard to the eligibility of MEIS scheme has not attained finality. Hence, respondent No. 4 is not justified in proposing to reject the claim of the petitioner for refund of amount of ₹ 2,74,78,495/- as incomplete and premature as the investigation conducted by respondent No. 4 has not attained finality. Respondent No. 3 ought to have awai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nature of certiorari for quashing show cause notice No. C. No. S-9/08/2020 Cus. Ref/2622, dated 28-7-2020 issued by respondent No. 4 at Annexure-A and a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 4, their officers and subordinates to exercise their powers under Section 27 of the Customs Act to grant them the refund of ₹ 2,74,78, 495/- along with interest claimed vide application dated 8-5-2020. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is still pending consideration. During pendency of investigation, petitioner has deposited a sum of ₹ 10,15,40,502/- with respondent No. 4 being the differential MEIS benefit availed by classifying the exported candles as handicraft goods. Thereafter he has obtained certificate from the Competent Authority namely, Development Commissioner (Handicraft) Bengaluru certifying that the scented c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No. 3 is without authority of law. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that petitioner is not entitled for refund of amount until and unless the matter regarding, whether the petitioner is entitled for benefit under the scheme as Handicrafts, is adjudicated by respondent No. 4. 8. I have analyzed the submission made the Learned Counsel appearing for the parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
