TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. Now the present impugned order has been passed on 28.03.2018 on a totally different ground stating that the petitioner should pay a total sum of ₹ 12,43,872/-. Unfortunately, the respondent Department has lost sight of the fact that the initial application for extension of time remained undisposed of and was kept pending though the petitioner had remitted the composition fee as early as on 08.10.2014, being a sum of ₹ 22,212/- and once again the very same amount was remitted by the petitioner on 20.12.2017. Therefore, at this juncture, directing the petitioner to remit composition fee till the period 30.09.2018 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Since the application for extension of time having not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 04.07.2012. In terms of the said permission, the petitioner had time till 31.07.2014 to complete the export obligation as per the stipulation in DEEC licence. The petitioner was unable to do so and sought for extension vide application dated 08.10.2014 by enclosing a Demand Draft for the composition fee for a sum of ₹ 22,212/-. Undoubtedly, this application was not disposed of and was pending. 3. The petitioner followed up the said application by a representation dated 14.10.2014. In the meantime, the Customs Department, the fourth respondent herein, in whose favour a bond and Bank Guarantee were furnished, to ensure compliance of the conditions of advance authorisation, had encashed the Bank Guarantee, since the petitioner f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2017 seeking extension of time, examine the bonafides of the representations in accordance with the relevant regulations and pass a speaking order within a time frame. The order was communicated by the petitioner to the respondents 1 to 3 vide representations dated 09.09.2017 and 20.09.2017. 4. Ultimately by communication dated 17.10.2014, the petitioner s application for extension was held to be deficient since the petitioner has not furnished composition fee as per paragraph 4.42 of the Handbook of Procedures of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 and the petitioner was directed to produce supporting documents. The petitioner stated that they have already paid the composition fee ₹ 22,212/- vide Demand Draft dated 20.12.2017, which acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .I do not agree with the submissions made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel to remand the matter to the second respondent to consider the eligibility of the petitioner for such prospective extension. After the petitioner's representation seeking extension, though the composition fee has been paid by the petitioner not once or twice the second respondent has decided to grant the extension only upto 02.07.2014. Therefore, the question of remanding the matter to the second respondent to once again decide the issue is unnecessary and uncalled for. 9.In other words, the second respondent cannot be given an opportunity to revise his own order and he having not been vested with any such power to revise his own order under the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be calculated for a period of six months from 22.02.2014 and the same is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to grant the petitioner extension of time by 6 months prospectively from the date of issuance of the order to be passed by the second respondent. 13.In the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 21634 and 21636 of 2017 dated 16.08.2017 and the observations made above, W.P.No.113 of 2018 is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 16.11.2017 are set aside and the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to remove the name of the petitioner's company from the denied entity list. Both the above directions shall be complied with, within a period of three(3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng extension of time on 19.01.2018, which was interfered only with regard to the date of extension, now the respondent Department cannot go back on what they have said in their order dated 19.01.2018 under the pretext of demanding higher composition fee . 10. Thus, for the above reasons, the impugned order demanding additional sum of composition fee over and above the amount already remitted by the petitioner is without jurisdiction and illegal. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to take note of the payment effected by the petitioner, namely ₹ 22,212/- vide communication dated 08.10.2014 and 20.12.2017 and not demand any further amount and pass orders gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
