TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 28.07.2015). The petitioner would, thereafter, be at liberty to utilise the funds received for complying with its obligation to make a pre-deposit to maintain an appeal before the CESTAT. This Court also considers it apposite to direct CESTAT not to reject the petitioner s appeal (diary no. 52123/2021) for want of pre-deposit for a period of four weeks from today - Insofar as the petitioner s claim for other remaining duty drawback is concerned (the duty drawback in respect of other Shipping Bills), the petitioner is at liberty to avail of its alternate remedy for release of the said amount. Petition disposed off. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN For the Petitioner Through: M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et Scheme. After the investigations were conducted, respondent no.1 issued a show cause noticed dated 27.09.2017 seeking the petitioner s response in respect of the allegations stated therein. The petitioner responded to the same by a letter dated 18.08.2021 and denied all allegations. 4. Thereafter on 15.09.2021, the Commissioner passed an order, inter alia, dropping proceedings for confiscation of goods and recovery of duty drawback of ₹10,16,78,637/-. However, the Commissioner directed recovery of ineligible Focus Market Scrips of ₹1,58,44,432/- and further imposed a penalty of ₹50,00,000/- under Section 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. On 25.09.2021, the petitioner requested for release of the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no provision under the Customs Act for adjustment of any amount due to an exporter against the obligation to make a pre-deposit for the purpose of pursuing an appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act. 9. We find merit in Mr. Singh s contentions that the relief directing adjustment of duty drawback against the petitioner s obligation to make a pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act is not permissible. The nature of a claim for duty drawback is materially different from the nature of the deposit required to avail a right of the appeal as provided under the Customs Act. 10. Having stated the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner s grievance may be allayed if directions are issued to the respondent to fort ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
