Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Rotomac Electricals Ltd. Versus Union of India & Another

2016 (11) TMI 469 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Advance licence - Duty Exemption Scheme - DEEC - invocation of Section 11(2) of FTDR Act, 1992 - Held that: - We do not find any substance even in the contention that the show cause notices being silent about the proposed levy of penalty, it is not open to the respondents to invoke Section 11(2) of FTDR Act, 1992. On a perusal of the show cause notices, we found that the petitioner was put on notice that it failed to submit the documents to prove the fulfilment of export obligation. It is also r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctors approached this Court. - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - LPA 363/2016 & CM No. 21426/2016 - Dated:- 8-11-2016 - Ms. G. Rohini, CJ And Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Chandrachur Bhattacharya, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Narula and Ms. Vinita, Advocates JUDGMENT Ms. G. Rohini, Chief Justice 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.05.2016 in W.P.(C) No.8417/2015 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as Free On Board (FOB) value within a period of 18 months from the date of the issue of advance licence. The licence also contained a specific clause that the licensee shall furnish the prescribed original documents along with the Duty Entitlement Exemption Certificate (DEEC) books having details of imports and exports duly authenticated by the Customs within two months of export obligation period to the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). Admittedly, the period of fulfilling the export o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated 19.05.2004 and 16.12.2004. The petitioner claims to have submitted its replies. 4. The respondent No.2 passed an order on 05.04.2010 holding that the licence had been mis-utilized and that the appellant had violated the provisions of the FTDR Act and imposing penalty of ₹ 3,46,30,500/- on the petitioner and the Directors in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(2) read with Section 11(4) of FTDR Act, 1992. The statutory appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 15 of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he fact that the appellant/writ petitioner had produced all the relevant documents to establish fulfilment of export obligation. Placing much reliance upon clause 4.12 of the Handbook of Procedures providing for "exports in anticipation of licence", it is vehemently contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the exports effected by the appellant/writ petitioner prior to the date of issuance of advance licence cannot be considered in ful .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

soned order after considering all the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. Having given sufficient opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents to establish the fulfilment of export obligation, the appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.1 by order dated 05.01.2015. The relevant paras of the said order may be reproduced for ready reference: "4. Thereafter, final personal hearing was granted on 27.08.2014 with directions to produce requisite documents to substantiate f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ligation against Advance Licence No.0131276 dated 22.12.1999. The following were the deficiencies in documents submitted by you:- i. Part-2 of DEEC Book not logged and endorsed by Customs. ii. EP copy of Shipping Bill does not show File No./Authorisation No. Therefore, these cannot be accepted towards fulfillment of export obligation. iii. MODVAT non-availment certificate from Central Excise not submitted. Copy of Form A.R.4, S.No.3(a) states that goods have been manufactured availing facility o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he AR-4 shows that they have obtained Modal facility. He requested for some more time. Accordingly, additional time till 15th December, 2014 was granted to make fresh submission. A letter dated 02.01.2015 has been received informing that they have obtained Modvat non-available certificate from Customs and Central Excise. But the other basic document like Shipping Bills endorsed by Customs were not submitted. 6. I have examined the documents and gone through the facts of the case. The appellant w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t has not produced Duplicate/Bank Certificate copy of BRC. They were repeatedly advised to provide the documents required as per Policy/Procedure but they failed to do so. From the above, it is clear that the appellant did not have the requisite documents required to prove that they have fulfilled export obligation in respect of advance licence No.0131276 dated 22.12.1999." 7. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, such finding of fact recorded by the statutory authorities regarding t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version