9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Circular No. 18/2013-Cus. dated 29.04.2013, he was not entitled to refund of 4% of SAD - there are no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the public notice was not issued regarding Circular No. 18/2013-Cus. dated 29.04.2013. If the said Circular was published on the official website of the DGFT, it amounts that the public notice was given about the Circular. There are no merit and substance in the present writ petition - petition dismissed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH For The Petitioner/S: By Advs. Sri. P.A. Augustian Sri. M.A. Baby For The Respondent/S: By Advs. Smt. C.G. Preetha, CGC S. Krishna Smt. Preetha S. Nair, SC, Central Board Of Excise Custo Smt. C.G. Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d make an initial payment of 4% SAD in cash instead of scrips. A decision was also taken that no recrediting should be done if such payment was made using scrips. In other words, in future, exporters should pay the SAD component in cash if they would like refund of 4% of SAD. 3.2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite issuing the said notification, the petitioner paid the 4% SAD in scrips as the petitioner was unaware of the said notification. He further submits that public notice should have been given regarding this notification/Circular No. 18/2013-Cus dated 29.04.2013 by the Cochin Port. It is, therefore, submitted that as per the mandate of the said Circular, public notice and Standing Order were required to be issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... publication of the notification on the official website is sufficient public notice. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that no public notice was given regarding the said circular/notification. 6. Learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 further submits that when the Circular itself provides that if any exporter claims refund of 4% SAD, the amount should have been paid in cash. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the said amount in cash but in scrips. Therefore, under the provisions of the said Circular, he was not entitled to the refund of 4% SAD on the Bills of Entries in the year 2014-2015. 7. I find substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, when the petitioner has not paid the 4% SA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
