TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal since 1979. 2. With a view to encouraging exports in foreign earnings, the Government of India, in April 1988, announced a scheme for grant of Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) to 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) situated in Export Processing Zones (EPZ). The scheme was initially valid for the year 1988-89 and was extended from time to time till 2-7-1991, when the cash assistance on the exports made from the country was abolished. 3. The petitioner claimed the CCS benefits based on the notional FOB value of exports which was arrived at by adding, inter alia, even the cost of raw materials which were, in fact, not paid for by the petitioner. 4. Vide letter dated 19-12-1991 the Office of the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Mumbai inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on 22-2-1992, this Court directed issuance of notice to the respondents. On 28-7-1993, while issuing Rule DB, this Court stayed the demand made by letter dated 19-12-1991 till further orders. 8. On 3-8-2005, this Court made a detailed order and the relevant portion of the said order reads as under : Petitioner has filed this petition way back in 1992 seeking quashing of the demand raised by respondents vide their letter dated 19-12-1991 and for asking them to make the due payment for the period 1-4-1989 to 2-12-1990. The company has also obtained a stay order from this Court against the recovery which is in force. When the matter was taken up for consideration, it was noticed that petitioner company had made a representation to respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o within six weeks on receipt of the said representation shall either dispose of the representation himself or through appropriate designated authority. Speaking reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner. 10. In accordance with the aforementioned order dated 22-8-2005 a detailed order dated 28-10-005 came to be passed by the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ Special Economic Zone, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Andheri (East), Mumbai. After considering the pleas of the petitioner herein, the Development Commissioner directed recovery of Rs. 23, 65, 251/- towards excess payments made to the petitioner during the period 1-4-1988 to 3-7-1991. With this, the earlier demand dated 19-12-1991, which was initi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary, either by himself or through the appropriate designated authority to dispose of the petitioner s representation. It was submitted that in the circumstances, the filing of a departmental appeal would be an exercise in futility. On the question of territorial jurisdiction, the submission is that the writ petition has been pending here for several years and on that short ground, this Court ought to decide the writ petition on merits by overruling any preliminary objection as to maintainability. It was further contended that the seat of the Union Government is in New Delhi and that even though the impugned order passed in Mumbai, the representation made by the petitioner was to the concerned authority at New Delhi. 14. We are unable to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days from the date on which the decision or order is served on such person : Provided that the Appellate Authority may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the aforesaid period, allow such appeal to be preferred within a further period of thirty days: Provided further that in the case of an appeal against a decision or order imposing a penalty or redemption charges, no such appeal shall be entertained unless the amount of the penalty or redemption charges has been deposited by the appellant. Provided also that, where the Appellate Authority is of opinion that the deposit to be made will cause undue hardship to the appellant, it may, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner to waive its statutory right to an appeal on the basis of certain submissions made across the Bar. When this Court made an order on 22-8-2005 directing the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce to either himself or through appropriate designated authority dispose of the petitioner s representation, it did not intend to substitute any existing statutory procedure for disposal of the representation. Merely because the order dated 28-10-2005 has been passed by the Development Commissioner, there is no ground for apprehending that the appeal against the said decision under Section 15 of the Act will not receive due consideration by the appellate authority. In any event, the decision by the appellate authority would also be subject to judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
