Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 474 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (1) TMI 474 - DELHI HIGH COURT - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 237 (Del.) - Validity of petition - whether there is before this Court, any petition filed by a person in existence and through a properly authorized person. - Fixation of brand rate of duty drawback - It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner that once it is the averment in the petition itself that M/s Bimla Industries has as far back as on 1st July, 2004 merged with M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. and thereby ceased to ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m pertains to more than 15 years back i.e. August, 1989 to September, 2001. The petitioner did not pursue the same. Though as per the recommendation dated 15th July, 2008 supra only the claims of those were to be considered who had filed writ petitions and which writ petitions were pending and M/s Bimla Industries was admittedly not covered thereby but the applications of M/s Bimla Industries appear to have been erroneously revived. The said erroneous revival was contrary to the policy decision .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sioner of Central Excise and Deputy Commissioner (Technical) of Central Excise to, within a period of one month fix the brand rate of drawback and dispose of the applications dated 25th November, 1999, 28th July, 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 s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s against exports made prior to 6th July, 2001 and whose writ petitions were pending before the High Court should be extended the benefit of the Circular No.68/97-Cus. or 39/99-Cus; (iii) (that even though the petitioner had not filed any writ petition and no writ petition of the petitioner was pending at that time but it appears that in terms of the aforesaid recommendation) the applications aforesaid of M/s. Bimla Industries were also considered and rejected vide order dated 19th October, 2010 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

udicating authority to re-examine the applications filed by M/s Bimla Industries for fixation of Brand Rate of Drawback in the light of the verification reports of jurisdictional Central Excise officers available on record and in terms of provisions of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The appeal filed by M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenware Ltd. also does not have any merit in view of discussions above and accordingly the appeal filed by the appellant M/s Maa Kalya .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

twithstanding 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. This petition has been filed by M/s Bimla Industries through its proprietor Mr. Ashok Kumar Kansal. 6. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner that once it is the averment in the petition itself that M/s Bimla Industries has as far back as on 1st July, 2004 merged with M/s Ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder. He further states that it was only for the purpose of Customs and Excise Laws that the appeal of M/s Maa Kalyani Kitchenwares Ltd. in which M/s Bimla Industries had merged was dismissed. 8. Today, we are concerned with the question whether there is before this Court, any petition filed by a person in existence and through a properly authorized person. 9. The answer to that question has to be in the negative. Neither does M/s Bimla Industries exist as on date on which the petition was filed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version