Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1993 (2) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 20,000 pieces of leather hand bags within six months from the date of importation of the first consignment against the said advance licence. The specified period, however, was subsequently extended till July 31, 1986. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the said Advance Import Licence the petitioner imported hand bag fittings. While fitting with leather bags, some fittings were broken and were found defective. The percentage of such broken/defective fittings are only 16% approximately. Such loss is bound to occur in every case of manufacture. The rest of the fittings were fitted with the leather hand bags manufactured by the petitioner. The leather hand bags were duly exported to foreign countries within the extended per .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nswers given by the petitioner to the first show cause notice and the proceedings were dropped. About two years thereafter, the petitioner was surprised to receive another show cause notice dated June 13, 1988 from the same Assistant Collector of Customs alleging the same facts as in the first show cause notice. The petitioner therein was directed to show cause why it should not pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,383.69 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from September 6,1984 for non-fulfilment of the conditions specified in the notification bearing No. 177/78. The case of the petitioner further is that after receiving the second notice Sri P. Monia, Agent of the petitioner met the Assistant Collector of Customs on or before the date o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aim within 15 days from the date of making such claim. As the Customs Authorities did not allow its drawback claim, Sri P. Monia, representative of the petitioner visited the office of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 on several occasions and requested them for allowing the drawback claim of the petitioner. During last week of August, 1992, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that the drawback claim could not be paid as a sum of Rs. 1,20,383.69 was recoverable from the petitioner pursuant to an order dated January 29, 1990. The petitioner thereafter made a thorough search in its office. After the thorough search, the petitioner was able to locate during the middle of October 1992 the said purported order dated January 29, 1992 passed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The petitioner also came to learn from enquiry that the said purported letter dated January 15, 1991 threatening to recover the said purported demand was served on the registered office of the petitioner. As the purported order dated January 29, 1990 was misplaced, the petitioner also could not take any step in pursuance of the said letter dated January 15, 1991. 6. The petitioner has now come with this writ petition alleging that the order dated January 29, 1990 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the said letter dated January 15, 1991 threatening to recover the said sum of Rs. 1,20,383.69 from the petitioner are without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction, wrongful, illegal and without authority of law. The said order was pass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed in this Court on behalf of the respondents. The only inference that can be drawn from the failure of the respondents to pass any order is that the respondents were satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. The question, therefore, is about the justification of issuance of the second show cause notice. Mr. Ghosh appearing for Customs Department has argued that because of certain defects in the first show cause notice the Department thought it fit to drop the proceedings and issue a second show cause notice. But this is an argument from the Bar and is not backed up by any record. I adjourned the case specifically to enable the Customs Department to satisfy the Court that a decision was taken to drop proceedings pursuant t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates