9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstitution]. 4. The amendments that the applicant/petitioner seeks are adverted to in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the application. 4.1 In the application, averments are also made to the effect that certain prayers need to be substituted. The reference to the substituted prayers is made in paragraph 9 of the application. 4.2. To be noted, a challenge to the show-cause notice is contained in prayer clause (c) in paragraph 9 of the application. 5. Mr Singh says that he does not wish to file a formal reply, so long as the respondents are given an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit to the amended writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the prayers made in the application are allowed. 7. The amended writ petition is taken on record. W.P.(C) 4629/2022 & CM Appl.13928/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 8. Although a separate application seeking stay of the operation of show-cause notice dated 08.07.2022 has not been filed, our attention has been drawn by Ms Anjali J. Manish, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, to prayer clause (d) of the amended writ petition. 9. It is also noticed that the abovementioned show-cause notice has been issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to Manish were issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). Ms Manish goes on to state that the last time around a summon was issued in 2019 was 16.05.2019. 4.2. Furthermore, Ms Manish says that, after a gap of nearly three years, a summon was issued to the petitioner on 02.03.2022, followed by a summon dated 09.03.2022. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court via the instant writ petition. 5. Besides this, Ms Manish has drawn our attention to the following facts: 5.1. Firstly, another entity going by the name of Stella Industries Ltd. had approached this Court by way of a writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No.860/2019. The grievance articulated by the Stella Industries Ltd. was that while search operations were being carried out, its representative was forced to make a deposit of Rs.70,00,000/- with the respondents/revenue. 5.2. Evidently, the aforementioned amount was returned to the petitioner. Accordingly, on 25.01.2019, when the said writ petition was taken up for hearing by the Court, the petition was disposed of after recording the stand of the respondents/revenue that the money has been returned to the petitioner. 5.3. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, a show cause notice date 08.07.2022 has been issued to the petitioner. 8.1. A hard copy of the said show cause notice has been placed before us in the course of the hearing. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that it is predicated upon the classification dispute obtaining between the parties. 9. Counsel for the parties have also informed us that a review application filed on behalf of the respondents/revenue before the CAAR was disposed of on 08.08.2022. The fact that a review application was filed is noticed in our order dated 13.07.2022 (the order, as uploaded, wrongly notes the date as 13.07.20229). 10. Be that as it may, it is not disputed by Mr Singh that the CAAR has rejected the respondents'/revenue's review application. A perusal of paragraphs 9.4 to 9.7 would show that the position taken by the respondents/revenue that the petitioner had indulged in fraudulent conduct was rejected by the CAAR. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinafter: "9.4 It is not in dispute that no Show Cause Notice had been issued to the applicant by DRI, New Delhi regarding the past clearances at the time of the applicant filing application before the erstwhile AAR, even i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f specific powers vested with the officer under the Customs Act. An illustrative list of such situations would include cases wherein a Show Cause Notice has been issued; bill of entry has been provisionally assessed under section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962; the matter is pending before the Special Valuation Branch of the Customs Commissionerate for the purpose of valuation of the goods in question; or the proper officer has held the pre-notice consultation with the applicant in terms of the proviso of subsection (a) of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.Therefore, in cases, such as the extant case, wherein an officer of customs is engaged in an investigation that may result in formulation of a question that would be posed before another competent officer would not qualify as "pending before an officer". 9.7 Before concluding, I wish to emphasise that the ruling pronounced by this Authority in the case of the applicant. M/s Spraytech India Limited was based on the submissions made by the applicant and considering the views of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs, noting that the applicant had approached this Authority to obtain certainty on the issue of classification b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
