9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marble blocks for the year 2010-11. The petitioner has also prayed that the subsequent communications dated 19.10.2010 and 21.02.2011 reiterating the rejection, pursuant to the representations made by the petitioner, be also set aside. 3. The petitioner is a public limited company having their registered office at Mumbai and their factory at Silvassa. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of marble tiles and marble slabs fallling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Act, 1985. The goods are manufactured by the petitioner mostly out of imported marble blocks. 4. The Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India, Respondent No. 2 is the Director General of Foreign Trade appointed under Section 6 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsing year 2009-10. April of the current (b) The eligible units as per Clause (a) above should have an indigenous sales turnover of processed marble slabs/ tiles only, of Rs. 1 Crore and above in each of the previous five fianncial years (i.e. for the financial years 2004-05 to 2008/09.) 8. Insofar as entitlement as regards import quota is concerned, as per the said notification, the quantity of marble allowed to be imported is subject to the following overall ceiling :- (i) Unit having one marble gang saw machine is entitled for a maximum licence of 3,000 MT of rough marble blocks; (ii) Units having more than one marble gang saw machine is entitled for a maximum licence of 3000 MT of rough marble blocks for the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the discrepancy stated is that instead of furnishing domestic sales turnover, the total turnover has been furnished. Admittedly, the domestic sales turnover achieved during the years in question is much more than the prescribed domestic sales turnover of Rs. 1 Crore. Therefore, notwithstanding the discrepancy in domestic sales turnover as per the balance-sheet filed with R.O.C. for the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the CA Certificate, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was infact entitled for allocation of import quota for import of rough marble blocks as per the Notification No.36/2009-14 dated 31.3.2010 inasmuch as in both the years the domestic sales turnover was shown to be more than 22 crores which is way beyond the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner for imposition of penalty and suspension/cancellation of IEC code u/s. 8 of the said Act for mis-declaration. The concluding paragraphs of the said order dated 29.7.2010 reads as under :- " I have gone through the documents submitted by the firm and facts of the case and find that the firm had submitted different information in the statement of accounts filed with the Income Tax and ROC with difference in turn over as is apparent from a scrutiny of the same. For the allocation for the 3rd and 4th the financial year 2009-10 also the firm had changed the CA certificates twice and at that stage a liberal view was taken on account of ceiling on entitlement because of gang saw limit. It is clear that although by increasing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er protest) if the petitioner is granted the important licence. We accept the statements of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, though the petitioner has been penalised by imposing costs of Rs. 1 lakh for the discrepancy which really has no bearing on the merits of the case, in our view, the DGFT was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for issuance of licence. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 10.5.2010 and the subsequent communications dated 19.10.2010 and 21.02.2011 reiterating the rejection pursuant to the petitioner's representations are also quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the licence for import of marb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
