9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural justice - HELD THAT:- Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents cannot rely upon the documents filed along with these writ petitions, that too, when the first respondent has not considered the same on merits in the impugned orders, which is a cryptic and a non-speaking order. Any improvement of the impugned order cannot be made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents before this Court is rejected. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has satisfied all the statutory requirements for claiming duty drawback as per the provisions under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. When the petitioner has given detailed reasons as to why th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 7A of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995, rejecting the petitioner's request for claiming duty drawback as per the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfactorily established the reasons for delay in filing the duty drawback claim. 4. Heard Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. According to the petitioner, they had imported accessories meant for manufacture of mobile phones from China. After utilisation of the imported accessories in the manufacture of mobile phones, the left over accessories were re-exported and the petitioner is entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows: 7A. Power to relax: If the Central Government is satisfied that in relation to the export of any goods, the exporter or his authorised agent has, for reasons beyond his control, failed to comply with any of the provisions of these rules, and has thus been entitled to drawback, it may, after considering the representation, if any, made by such exporter or agent, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, exempt such exporter or agent from the provisions of such rule and allow drawback in respect of such goods. 6. Under the impugned orders, the relaxation petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 7A of the aforementioned Rule has been rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has also relied upon various decisions before the first respondent, which are mentioned hereunder, in support of their case that they are entitled for relaxation as per the rule 7A of the 1995 rules: a. 2003 (156) ELT 841 (Cal) - para 21,23,24, 27 and 33 b. 2010 (255) ELT 226 (Kar) as affirmed by Supreme Court in 2010 (255) ELT A46 (SC) c. 2013 (289) ELT 151 (Del) - para 3,4,6,7 and 8 d. 2015 (325) ELT 519 (Kar) - para 9 and 10 e. 2018 (360) ELT 449 (Mad) - para 6,8,9 and 11 f. 2018 (362) ELT 87 (Mad) - para 18 to 26 7. However, as seen from the impugned orders, the contentions of the petitioner for not preferring the duty drawback claim within the prescribed time has not been considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Standing Counsel for the respondents before this Court is rejected. 9. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has satisfied all the statutory requirements for claiming duty drawback as per the provisions under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. When the petitioner has given detailed reasons as to why they were unable to file the duty drawback claim within the prescribed time, the first respondent ought to have considered the said reasons objectively, but as seen from the impugned orders, no reasons have been given for rejecting the petitioner s reasons for non filing of the duty drawback claim on time. Being a cryptic and a non-speaking order, the impugned orders will have to be necessarily quashed and the matter has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
