9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, 2000 and 1st November, 2001 filed by the petitioner. Additional mandamus is also sought to the respondents to release the amount of drawback so calculated. 4. It is the case in the petition: (i) that M/s Bimla Industries of which Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal was the sole proprietor exported stainless steel cutlery and utensils between August, 1989 and September, 2001 and made applications for fixation of brand rate on duty drawback, for Rs. 1,22,660/-, Rs. 35,085/- & Rs. 1,04,864/- under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 and the prevalent Export Import Policy; (ii) that the Drawback Cell of Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi vide letter dated 15th July, 2008 recommended that those exporters who had fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al filed by the appellant M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenware Ltd. is rejected as far as their right to claim drawback accrued to M/s Bimla Industries is concerned." (vi) that the department preferred first an appeal and thereafter a revision petition against order aforesaid but which were dismissed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on 22nd June, 2012 and 18th December, 2013 respectively; This petition has been filed with the grievance that notwithstanding the direction aforesaid dated 25th November, 2011 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the applications of M/s Bimla Industries for fixation of brand rate have not been decided. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yani Kitchenwares Ltd. has been held to be not entitled to pursue the claim of M/s Bimla Industries, Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal, on remand is entitled to do so. 11. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that at the time of merger any such rights were vested in or remained in Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal. From the averment of merger, it has to be assumed that Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal settled all his claims as proprietor of M/s Bimla Industries with M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. and thus Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal today is not entitled to receive any claims even if outstanding in the name of M/s Bimla Industries and the claim therefor would be of M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. only. The petitioner did not challenge and has in this petition al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
