Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (8) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the appellant was issued with import export licence bearing code no.0492020779, besides they had obtained four EPCG authorizations. Since they failed to comply with the export obligation, during the month of November, 2013, they were issued with show cause notice, proposing to levy penalty. In the very same show cause notice issued by the third respondent, there was a proposal made as to why the Import Export Code issued to the appellant should not be suspended under Section 11(7) of the FTDR Act, 1992 as amended during 2010. However, no show cause notice as contemplated under the Act, was issued and no opportunity was provided to the appellant, before suspending the IEC, by the third respondent. Ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee has come up with this appeal. 2.The necessary facts leading to the filing of this appeal, would run thus: 2.1. The appellant is in the business of import and export and has obtained Import Export Code No.0492020779. During the course of the same, they had obtained four EPCG authorisations from the third respondent for import of vapour absorption heat pump, membrane filter press, lenser mixed pack PP membrane, Deliniting Hulling Oil Pressing Equipment, Diesel Generating Set and Centrifugal Separator. With the use of the imported goods, the appellant has an obligation to export Vanaspathi and Margarine. 2.2. While so, they were issued with a show cause notice dated November, 2013 proposing to impose penalty and also for suspe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of cancellation of their import export code no.0492020779 by the third respondent and for consequential direction. 2.6. By order dated 25.03.2021, the learned Judge has disposed of the said writ petition, with the following directions: (i)The jurisdictional officer under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 should issue appropriate show cause notice to the appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, calling upon them to explain, as to why the import export code should not be cancelled; (ii)On such show cause notice being issued within such time, the appellant should file a reply within a period of 30 days thereafter. (iii)The jurisdictional officer should thereafter pass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... datory, without which, the department is not justified in either cancelling or superseding the IEC licence issued to the appellant. Therefore, the learned Judge sought to allow this appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Judge as well as the order impugned in the writ petition. 4.On the other hand, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant has not discharged the export obligation undertaken in the authorisations issued to them and hence, the IEC licence was suspended on 17.03.2014. However, the learned counsel fairly conceded that no separate show cause notice was issued to the appellant prior to the cancellation of the IEC code. Therefore, the learned Judge has r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r under the Act, to issue appropriate show cause notice to the appellant, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; further directed the appellant to file a reply within a period of 30 days; and thereafter, directed the jurisdictional officer to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Further, the interest of the appellant was rightly protected by extending the status quo order for a period of 90 days. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the order of the learned Judge so passed does not call for any interference. 8.It is brought to the notice of this court that pursuant to the order of the learne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates