9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner and to accept the Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) submitted by the petitioner vide letter dated 23.11.2006 and 27.07.2007 as proof of export and realization of export proceeds of the shipment covered by shipping bills covered vide Order-in-Original No.77/2008/BRC dated 15.11.2008. 3. The petitioner had availed the benefit of Duty Drawback Scheme for the exports made by them. The show cause notices dated 07.11.2006 and 15.06.2007 were issued calling upon the petitioner to state as to why the amount of Rs. 30,69,545/- received by them as drawback be not recovered as the petitioner failed to produce evidences for having realized the sale proceeds in foreign exchange exports made within the stipulated period of six months in the form o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the petitioner which the petitioner has remitted. When proceedings were initiated for recovery of the amount of drawback availed by the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation 12.05.2011 and since the same was not considered, they have filed this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original BRC having been submitted within the time permitted in terms of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1955, they are entitled for the drawback as evidence of BRC has been produced by the petitioner. The Department on the other hand would contend that the petitioner have not preferred any appeal against the Order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arte and concluded that the petitioner has not produced the BRC. Therefore, they have to pay a sum of Rs. 20,69,545/- which they have availed as duty drawback. Thus, it is clear that at no point of time, the petitioner's case was adjudicated by the authority to ascertain as to whether the BRC produced by the petitioner along with their letters dated 23.11.2006 and 27.07.2007 to the Assistant Commissioner, ICD, Tirupur merits consideration. Therefore, merely because the Original Authority has decided exparte cannot operate as estoppel and the Department cannot refuse to consider the factual position, especially when the petitioner has prima facie established before this Court that they have produced the BRC before the concerned authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
