TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 4% SAD paid through DEPB/rewards scrips should be disposed of by 30.06.2013, and report should be sent by the Chief Commissioner of Customs to the Board by 04.07.2013. The petitioner is entitled to one more opportunity to place all contentions before the second respondent, viz., the Original Authority, with regard to three Bills of Entry, dated 06.03.2009, 11.02.2009 and 07.01.2009, for which, refund applications were filed on 13.01.2010. - Revenue directed to pass a reasoned order within 3 months. - Writ Petition No. 18071 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2016 - The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Sivagnanam For Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.K.Mohana Murali ORDER Heard Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and in fact, such a plea has been raised in this Writ Petition, and it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, in the memorandum of grounds of appeal before the Commissioner of Custms (Appeals), the petitioner has raised such a plea of violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to them. 6. The second respondent, on scrutiny of the documents, held that the petitioner has availed the benefit of the notification No.41 of 2005, and in terms of para No.4 of the said notification, the petitioner shall be entitled to avail of the drawback, or CENVAT Credit of additional duty, leviable under Section 3 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SAD) is extended till 30.06.2012. 8. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that they having filed the applications for refund, as early as on 13.01.2010, the Authority ought to have taken decision in the matter in terms of circular issued by the Board, and passed orders on or before 30.06.2012. Further, the petitioner pointed out that, in another Circular No.18 of 2013, dated 29.04.2013, the Board directed all the Chief Commissioner of Customs to ensure that all pending applications for refund of 4% SAD paid through DEPB/reward scheme scrips are disposed of by 30.06.2013. 9. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that had the second respondent adhered to the Circulars, referred above, the petitioner would not have been put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for cash refund, and therefore, they have filed this Writ Petition, without availing the alternate remedy of filing Appeal before Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Though such arguments are advanced before this Court, it appears that these contentions were not raised before the first respondent/Commissioner of Appeals, nor, were placed before the second respondent, the original authority, since the Original Authority did not afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. It is not in dispute that the refund applications, which were filed on 13.1.2010, were not taken for disposal for nearly four years, when the Board had issued circular, directing all the Chief Commissioner of Customs to ensure that all pendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
