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

2016 (11) TMI 469 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (11) TMI 469 - DELHI HIGH COURT - 2017 (345) E.L.T. 5 (Del.) - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en made liable also deserves no consideration since none of the Directors 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

required to complete the export obligation of ₹ 1,07,58,600/- 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 For .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment of export obligation followed by a similar show cause notices dated 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

authority while disposing of the statutory appeal passed a well-reasoned 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 27.08.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at these documents could not be accepted for fulfilment of export obligation 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. .....

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 discharge of export obligation against advance licence. Further, the 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 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

wing authorization No/File No. Further, it is observed that appellant 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, su .....

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