9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms (SC-2094) JUDGMENT DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. The petitioner in WP(C). No.7262 of 2016 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.07.2023 of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:- The appellant is stated to be a leading food processing unit in India and is engaged in the export of processed food. In connection with its business activities, it procures raw materials locally to process the food items for export. On certain occasions, raw materials are also imported for the purposes of meeting its export obligations. 3. It is the case of the appellant that while importing goods it used to pay the basic customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Single Judge, who considered the matter found that the contention of the appellant that he was not aware of the new Circular issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (for short, 'DGFT') could not be countenanced, and further that his contention that so long as the Customs Authorities did not deny the initial payment of 4% SAD by the appellant, they could not deny him the refund, once the conditions for refund had been satisfied in terms of Notification/Circular No. 18/2013-Cus dated 29.04.2013, could not be accepted. He therefore dismissed the Writ Petition after finding that the claim for refund preferred by the appellant could not be processed. 5. Before us, it is the submission of Sri. Baby M.A, the learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 that the case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was only that he was not aware of the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which repelled his contentions based on the said argument did not merit any interference. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the entitlement of the appellant for the refund aforementioned. While it may be a fact that, based on the subsequent Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (which has since been annulled by the Delhi High Court in the decision in Allen Diesels India Pvt. Ltd (Supra)), the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
