9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 appreciated and they are narrated below. 3. The respondent was running a unit in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). During the course of such business, they made a request on 15.02.2007 to the Development Commissioner, Madras Export Processing Zone for issuance of No Objection certificate for exit from the EOU Scheme and enter into Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG). Upon scrutiny of such request, the Development Commissioner passed an order dated 10.04.2007 according in-principle approval to the respondent. Based on the same, by a communication dated 13.04.2007 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing their request for conversion of EOU shipping bills to drawback shipping bills for the goods exported by them during the period from 21.04.2007 to 06.12.2007 enclosing all the relevant details followed by a reminder on 10.10.2008. Such representation made by the respondent was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants to grant drawback to the respondent in respect of 207 shipping bills amounting to Rs.5,86,23,750/-. By a common order dated 25.06.2021, all the three writ petitions were disposed of by setting aside the orders impugned therein. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants / department have come up with these writ appeals. 7. Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) and the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) being independent quasi - judicial authorities, are expected to act independently and render their views with regard to the merits of the case, in accordance with the provisions of law and therefore, the learned Judge ought not to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the materials placed on record. 11. In the above backdrop, this court is of the view that there is no necessity to appreciate the factual matri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd availment of another. Appendix 14-I-L of the Hand book sets out guidelines for the exit of EOU/EHTP/STP units and there is no violation alleged of any of the prescribed guidelines. 20. Though Rule 12 (1) clearly vests discretion in the Commissioner to grant exemption by way of duty drawback even in respect of free shipping bills, such discretion must be extended by way of a reasoned speaking order. 21. In my considered view, neither of the impugned orders dated 09.08.2019 and 02.03.2020 satisfy this requirement. 22. Very relevantly, such discretion has been exercised by the authorities at Tuticorin and by the Commissioner Airport, though pursuant to the impugned order, the latter order is now under re-consideration. The discretion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. Though the learned senior panel counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the two different authorities have exercised their respective discretions under the Act and the same have nothing to do with the consideration of the claim of the respondent, the same cannot be countenanced by this court, as it is eminently desirable that there should be an uniformity of construction by the authorities in applying the relevant provisions of the Act and policy. 13. Therefore, in order to give quietus to the issue involved herein and meet the ends of justice, we direct that 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
