TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the factual aspects. The petitioners have to submit to the jurisdiction of the respondents by filing suitable reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice. If the petitioners suffer an adverse order, there is a hierarchy of the Appellate Authority under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the petitioners have to work out their remedy before the Authorities under the Act. There is no merit in the present Writ Petition - the first respondent is therefore directed to complete the proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned Show Cause Notice after following the principles of natural justice and affording an opportunity of personal hearing, preferably within a period of six months from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2004 and exempted the levy of excise duty on all the goods falling under Chapter Heading No.5509 and consequently, the countervailing duty levied under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which is equal to the Central Excise Duty on like goods if produced or manufactured in India, was exempted on all the goods falling under Chapter Heading No.5509. 5. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R.F. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs , 2015 (318) E.L.T. 607 (SC), while dealing with the Notification No.6/2002-CE, dated 01.03.2002 containing similar conditions as in Notification No.30/2004 Central Excise, dated 09.07.2004, held that the assessee therein was entitled to exemption from payment of countervailing duty in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 3885/16 (09.09.2016) 56832/17 (15.02.2017) ₹ 1,46,86,531/- 5 Arun Vishwamitter Associates (09.09.2016) 48 3904/16 (09.09.2016) Total ₹ 2,26,75,276/- 7. It is submitted that in respect of refund of 97 (49 + 48) Bills of Entry in Sl.Nos.5 6, the first petitioner company filed refund applications dated 09.09.2016 before the second respondent which were rejected vide order dated 15.02.2017 on the ground that the protest payment communication on behalf of the first petitioner was not registered with the Department. 8. Thereafter, the first petitioner filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready Industries India Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai , 2016 (337) E.L.T. 189 (Mad); ii. Commissioner of Customs Vs. Millat Fibers , 2011 (271) E.L.T. 512 (Guj.). iii. Madurai Power Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai-1 , 2008 (229) E.L.T. 521 (Mad.) iv. Honda Siel Power Products Vs. Union of India , 2020 (372) E.L.T. 30 (All.) v. C.C. C.E., Tirupati Vs. Panyam Cements Minnerals Industries Ltd. , 2016 (331) E.L.T. 206 (A.P.) vi. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India , 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) vii. I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata IV , 2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C) viii. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Vs. Re-Rolling Mills , 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) 2 SCR 241 : AIR 1961 SC 372 xxiii. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta , 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.) xxiv. Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India , 2016 (341) E.L.T. 110 (Del.) xxv. E.I.Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India , 2014 (305) E.L.T. 282 (Guj.) xxvi. Kesoram Cements, Basantnagar Vs. Union of India and others , 1982 (10) E.L.T. 214 (A.P.) xxvii. Ebiz.com Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs S.T. , 2017 (49) S.T.R.389 (All.) xxviii. Adarsh Metal Corporation Vs. Union of India , 1993 (67) E.L.T. 483 (Raj.) xxix. Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India , 2017 (358) E.L.T. 81 (Del.) 13. The learned Junior Standi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suffer an adverse order, there is a hierarchy of the Appellate Authority under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the petitioners have to work out their remedy before the Authorities under the Act. There is no merit in the present Writ Petition. 17. The first respondent is therefore directed to complete the proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned Show Cause Notice after following the principles of natural justice and affording an opportunity of personal hearing, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order . The petitioner is at liberty to file suitable reply before the first respondent. In case the petitioner suffers an adverse order, an appellate remedy is available under the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
