9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an uniformity of construction by the authorities in applying the relevant provisions of the Act and policy. The application of the respondent seeking duty drawback, be placed before an independent officer in the rank of Chief Commissioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said officer shall re-visit the issue relating to the eligibility of the respondent and decide the same, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to them - Appeal disposed off. - Writ Appeal Nos. 771, 773 & 774 of 2022 And CMP Nos. 5405, 5407, 5398, 5399 and 5388 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2022 - Honourable Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan And Honourable Mr. Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad For the Appellants : Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Panel Counsel For the Respondent : Mr.C.Manishankar, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Krishnamurthy COMMON JUDGMENT R.MAHADEVAN, J. These Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated 25.06.2021 passed in W.P. Nos. 9853, 9858 9859 of 2020 filed by the respondent / assessee. 2. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, certain facts are required to be app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms (Exports) on 16.10.2008. At the same time, by order dated 20.11.2008, the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) sanctioned the claim of the respondent by quantifying the customs drawback and central excise drawback to be refunded. After passing such an order dated 20.11.2008, the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) passed an order dated 31.07.2009 seeking refund of duty draw back on the ground that it was erroneously ordered to be refunded to the respondent. In the meantime, the third appellant herein also passed an order dated 05.05.2009 stating that the request for allowing duty drawback on consignments exported prior to issuance of No Due Certificate by customs and central excise authorities, is not maintainable and cannot be acceded to. Challenging the orders dated 05.05.2009 and 31.07.2009, the respondent filed WP Nos. 3261 to 3264 of 2010. 5. By a common order dated 25.10.2018 passed in WP Nos. 3261 to 3264 of 2010, the learned Judge set aside the communication dated 05.05.2009 of the third appellant and directed the Board to decide the matter afresh after issuing notice to the respondent and receiving their reply. As regards the communication dated 31.07.2009 of the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the respondent for EPCG authorisation, a final exit order was passed by the Development Commissioner on 01.01.2008. By referring to the communication dated 02.03.2009, the learned Senior counsel submitted that a conflicting view was taken by the Chennai Commissionerate, while rejecting the request of the respondent, whereas Air Cargo Commissioner allowed the claim of the respondent to get duty drawback and even the Joint Secretary (Drawback) expressed that it would be unfair to reject the claim of the respondent after collecting the duty. Thus, the entitlement of the respondent for conversion is not in dispute and it is in accordance with Rule 12 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules. After pointing out the same, the learned Judge concluded that the discretion exercised by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Export) Tuticorin has attained finality and is not under review. Therefore, while disposing of the writ petitions, the learned Judge rightly issued directions to both the authorities to consider the claim of the respondent and the same need not be interfered with by this court. 10. We have heard the counsel on either side and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discretion originally exercised by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Export), Tuticorin has attained finality and is not under review. 23. The Customs Act, 1962 is a central enactment and there must thus, be uniformity in the exercise of discretion by officers in different stations. If an officer in a particular station has thought it fit to accept an assessee's claim in an identical circumstance, then any variation from this point of view only be after a process of detailed reasoning to justify the difference in stand. 24. I am of the considered view that the dichotomy in the stand adopted by the different authorities as well as the fact that there is no reasoning to support the conclusion in the impugned order, is fatal to the respondents' case. 25. The impugned orders are set aside. The order of stay granted in W.P.No.9853 of 2020, challenging the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner, Sea Port is vacated. Proceedings shall be taken/continued afresh, the petitioner heard in both matters and detailed orders be passed on the petitioners' claim to exemption by both the authorities. It is expected that the orders passed will reflect due application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
