9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005 1,02,11,486/- 20,57,172/- 929209/17.12.2005 1,08,40,687/- 27,02,746/- 932933/23.12.2005 80,69,011/- 16,25,556/- Total 3,39,39,123/- 73,56,080/- 2. Arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the show cause notice issued in the name of M/s.Fabritex Exports Pvt Ltd which has ceased to exists long before on account of mergers and de-mergers. 3. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- i) J.M.Baxi & Co. vs Commissioner of Customs, New Kandla, 2000(120)E.L.T.29 (S.C.) ii) Dharampal Lalchand Chug vs. Commissioner of C.Ex.Nashik, 2015(323)E.L.T.753 (Bom.,) iii) Madina (UZ) Impex vs. Union of India, 2019(368) E.L.T.555(Del.) iv) Government of India vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, 1989(42)E.L.T.515(S.C.) v) Spice Entertainment Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax reported in 2012 (280) E.L.T 43(Del), vi) CIT New Delhi Vs. M/s.Spice Enfotainment Ltd in Civil Appeal No.285 of 2014, vii) Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -6 Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Counsel for the second respondent would draw attention to the communications sent M/s.Fabritex Exports Pvt Ltd., on 13.08.2007, 21.01.2008 and 28.01.2008. 8. It is submitted that the said company had informed that there is a genuine difficulty and that they have undertaken to pay balance of the tax after remitting a sum of Rs. 13,35,036/-. 9. Defending the impugned order, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the first and third respondents would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is pre-mature. It is submitted that it is for the petitioner to reply to the impugned show cause notice. 10. That apart, it is submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the context of Section 28 of the Customs Act in the case of Varalakshmi Exports Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2021 (376) E.L.T.463 (Mad). A reference is made to Paragraph 18, 19 and 20, which reads as under:- 18. The demand of duty for violating the post importation condition of an exemption notification is not confined to any period of limitation and hence there is no relevancy in the argument of the Appellants that they did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hcare Pvt Ltd reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 425 (S.C). He has also drawn attention to distinguish the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited reported in (2019) 107 taxmann.con 375 SC with a decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Mando Automative India Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, J.Sundararajan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 4 (1), 4th Floor, Main Building, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 600 034 reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 12514. 13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that M/s.Fabritex Exports Pvt.Ltd., had obtained Advance Authorization No.0710041662/30.11.2005 from ADGFT, Bangalore. The said Authorization was issued with a condition that the importer has to fulfill the export obligation as prescribed in the above said notification read with the conditions as prescribed in the Advance Authorization. The importer had also executed bond of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- with an undertaking that they will fulfill the export obligation, failing which they will pay back the customs duties availed as exemption under Advance Authoriza ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any. Therefore, the writ petition filed by M/s.Integra Garments & Textiles Ltd. It is submitted that the petitioners contention cannot be accepted as the Authorization holder i.e. M/s.Fibritex Exports Pvt.Ltd., have submitted the export documents for discharge of export obligation to the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade on 13.08.2007. On examining of export documents for discharge of obligation, it was found that the firm had unutilized excess import to the extent of 729672 sq.mtrs. Therefore, they were asked to regularise the excess import by payment of duty plus interest on unutilized imported fabric by this office letter dated 21.01.2008. 19. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the first and second respondent further submits that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted because the firm was given enough time to settle the issue on payment of duty plus interest on unutilized excess imports. But, however, the petitioner has not settled the issue as per the RLA's letter dated 21.01.2008 as assured by them. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid on merits and is not maintainable and hence this Court may be pleased to direct the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company as its successor. As a transferee company, the petitioner cannot state that the liability of the noticee company stood extinguished on account of its merger /amalgamation with it. 26. The decisions cited by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the case. This writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 27. The petitioner is therefore directed to file a reply with the impugned Show Cause Notice within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 28. For the sake of clarity, a corrigendum may be issued to the impugned Show Cause Notice to the petitioner as a transferee company/successor of Noticee company namely M/s.Fabritex Exports Pvt.Ltd. 29. The respondents are directed to adjudicate the same and pass orders on merits within a period of three months thereafter. Needless to state that the petitioner shall be heard and entitled to file a written submission if any. 30. Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 31. It is made clear that if the petitioner as the successor of the Notice company fails to co-operate with the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
