Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Special Civil Application No. 8401 of 2016 with S.C.A. No. 11962 of 2016. Case: Jolly Industries Vs Union of India. Gujarat High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberSpecial Civil Application No. 8401 of 2016 with S.C.A. No. 11962 of 2016
Party NameJolly Industries Vs Union of India
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Dipen Desai, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Jaimin A. Gandhi, and Devang Vyas, Advocates
JudgesS.R. Brahmbhatt and A.Y. Kogje, JJ.
IssueCustoms Act, 1962 - Section 75A
Citation2017 (345) ELT 343 (Guj)
Judgement DateOctober 04, 2016
CourtGujarat High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases

Order:

A.Y. Kogje, J.

  1. These petitions arise from the same factual background. With consent of both the parties, the petitions are taken up for hearing together. The facts from SCA No. 8401 of 2016 are taken.

  2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying inter alia for a direction to the respondents Revenue authorities to release an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs towards the claim of drawback along with interest as applicable under Section 75A of the Customs Act.

  3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and export of forgings and casting items. The petitioner is exporting such goods to the countries like Dubai, UAE, etc. The petitioner is duly registered with office of DGFT, Ludhiana.

    3.1 In the due course of his business, the petitioner has exported various containers under different invoices and shipping bills in the period from April, 2014 to December, 2014. Such goods have already been cleared and the export transaction is concluded. The let export order under Section 51 of the Customs Act has been passed and the goods have also been assessed under Section 17. No objection has been raised by the Department in connection with the classification, etc. However, though the petitioner is entitled to drawback, the Department is not deciding such application for drawback submitted by the petitioner.

  4. Heard learned Advocate Shri Dipen Desai for the petitioner.

  5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner took this Court through the relevant provisions pertaining to drawback being Sections 75, 75A and 76 of the Customs Act and contended that once the goods have been cleared for export and the goods have been released and exported and after the export commitments are fulfilled, there is no reason for withholding the drawback amount. He submitted that in connection with the consignments which are exported, the petitioner is not facing any departmental proceedings. He also submitted that even after the exports in question, subsequent exports have also been made by the petitioner, in connection of which also, the petitioner has not received any show cause notice from the Department.

    5.1 In view of the aforesaid, he submitted that there appears to be no reason that the drawback application of the petitioner should be kept in suspension for all time to come. He submitted that the petitioner has reason to believe that on the ground that in subsequent transaction of export by some other...

To continue reading

Request your trial