TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim made by him as well as interest on the same under Section 27A of the Customs Act - the said Order dated 06.03.2020 was binding upon the respondent No.1 who had no other option than to give effect and implement the same thereby disbursing the duty drawback claim in favour of the petitioner together with applicable interest as directed in the Order dated 06.03.2020 and failure on the part of the respondent No.1 to appreciate this and instead proceeding to reject the claim of the petitioner on irrelevant and extraneous grounds is clearly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the principles of resjudicata. The respondent No.1 has proceeded to revisit / review the Order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority which is clearly im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the earlier round of litigation between the petitioner and the respondents, which culminated in the Order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Appeals whereunder the Appellate Authority set aside the Order dated 06.07.2019 passed by respondent No.1 and allowed the claim of the petitioner for duty drawback and consequential benefits in this regard. It is pointed out that the said Order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellate Authority and consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents to implement and give effect to the said Order dated 06.03.2020 and disburse the duty drawback claim in favour of the petitioner together with applicable interest in accordance with law at the earliest. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) Ramachandra Dagdu Sonavane Vs. Vithu Hira Mahar (2009) 10 SCC 273; ii) Forward Construction Co. Vs. Prabhat Mandal (1986) 1 SCC 100; iii) Koran Vs. Kamalashetty AIR 1978 Ker. 172; iv) Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India (1976) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding upon the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 did not have any jurisdiction or authority of law to venture beyond / behind the said order dated 06.03.2020 nor attempt to interpret the same in any manner whatsoever for the purpose of rejecting the claim of the petitioner which had been upheld by the Appellate Authority by setting aside the earlier order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the respondent No.1. In other words, the said Order dated 06.03.2020 was binding upon the respondent No.1 who had no other option than to give effect and implement the same thereby disbursing the duty drawback claim in favour of the petitioner together with applicable interest as directed in the Order dated 06.03.2020 and failure on the part of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
