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

2013 (12) TMI 1532

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hey are not eligible for permission relating to conversion. The facts : 2. The petitioner is engaged in multifarious activities including manufacturing of packaging materials, paper and paperboard, matches, stationery, cigarettes, food products etc. The petitioner had a manufacturing unit at Thiruvottiyur, wherein packaging materials are made. The unit is registered with the Central Excise Department. The Petitioner clears the packaging goods in the domestic market after discharging appropriate Central Excise Duty. The Petitioner also clears the packaging material manufactures by it for export. 3. The Foreign Trade Policy announced by the Government of India, provides for, inter alia, various duty exemption schemes, which enables .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Authorized Officer by order dated 6 February 2009. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Authorised officer and dismissed the appeal. The order passed by the Commissioner dated 8 November 2010 was challenged before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT ). The CESTAT took a view that neither the Authorised Officer who had issued the initial letter of rejection nor the lower Appellate Authority were authorized under Board s Circular dated 16 Jan. 2004 to deal with the case of conversion of shipping bill from one export promotion scheme to another. According to CESTAT the jurisdictio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er orders and as such the applications for granting DEPB benefits do not deserve consideration. The individual orders dated 10 August 2012 are the subject matter of these writ petitions. 9. The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade in his counter affidavit justified the impugned orders. According to the Joint Director General, the petitioner had already availed the benefit of DFIA Licence under duty exemption Scheme. Since the said licence was obtained and later surrendered after its expiry, though un-utilised, the petitioner is not entitled to seek conversion. Submissions : 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed 32 digital applications in the proper form along with the converted Bills of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in DEPB Licences against the Bills of Export. The petitioner presented 32 digital applications for the period from 10 June 2012 to 1 August 2012 in the prescribed format along with the converted Bills of Export and related documents before the third respondent. The petitioner requested the third respondent to issue 32 DEPB Licences. There is nothing on record to show that those 32 digital applications were considered by the third respondent. The impugned order does not contain any indication that 32 digital applications were transferred by third respondent to the second respondent for fresh consideration. Similarly, there is nothing on record to prove that the second respondent was authorized by the third respondent to take up those matters .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gnated Authority - (2011) 2 SCC 258 = 2011 (263) E.L.T. 481 very clearly observed that unless the statutory provision excludes the application of principles of natural justice, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of hearing is the rule. The Supreme Court observed : It is thus, well settled that unless a statutory provision, either specifically or by necessary implication excluded the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences which obviously cover infr .....

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