9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttee in Appeal No.12013/6/2013 preferred against the order dated 11.02.2013 of the Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone. The short question involved in this case is if the petitioner who was not required to deposit Terminal Excise Duty (TED) for export of goods from one unit to another, can the authorities remain as a mute spectator is not refunding the amount on the ground of any provision in the Foreign Trade Regulation and Development Act, 1992 with consequential relief of refund or alternatively quashing Ext.P2 letter dated 5.11.2019. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: Petitioner, a private limited company, is engaged in the activity of manufacture of parts and accessories used for ATM machines (hereinafter referre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and accordingly submitted application for the relevant period as reflected from at page 5 and 6 of paper book (Ext.P7-P7(e)). But the same were erroneously rejected vide order dated 27th June, 2012 (Ext.P8). Petitioner vide Ext.P10 letter dated 27.12.2012 requested for an appealable speaking order in order to prefer an appeal before an appropriate authority. Show cause notice dated 10.01.2013 Ext.P11 was served, which was duly replied by Ext.P12 and accordingly, after affording opportunity of hearing vide order dated 11.02.2013 Ext.P13, claim was formally rejected. Petitioner preferred an appeal, the same has erroneously been rejected. 4. Mr.Ravi Raghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so legitimately expected to take the congnizance of the matter in correct perspective by giving due consideration to the respective contentions and the law cited at the Bar, but should not pass an order in a most mechanical and sketchy manner, which is reflected from the impugned order Ext.P1. Development Commissioner in his order submitted that if the credit is availed, leavy certain, but if not availed, final goods are exempted, and in the absence of any provision of refund in the FTP, the case has been rejected. Once there was such finding, the Appellate Authority ought to have examined the matter in the background that it is a welfare State and the Department/ Government do not indulge into profit making. If inadvertently certain amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
