Allowed

M/S.Biotor Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors./ M/S. Biotor Industries Limited

Bombay HC31 Oct 2017NMW/187/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the respondents cannot refuse to comply with a prior direction for refunding duty drawback. It dismissed the ground that records were unavailable and directed the refund to be made by a fixed date.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to issue refund to the petitioner on or before 30 November 2017.

M/S.Biotor Industries Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

2-nmw-187-2013

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 187 OF 2013

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 871 OF 1994

¶7

M/s. Biotor Industries Ltd. … Applicant

¶8

vs.

¶9

Union of India and Ors. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Pankaj Sawant, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. V. L. Muralidharan i/b. M/s. Joy Legal Consultants for the Applicant. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 31^st OCTOBER, 2017

¶12

P. C.

¶13

The present Notice of Motion is taken out in April 2013 seeking implementation of the following direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court under the Order dated 5^th February, 2010:

¶14

“The Respondents are, therefore, directed to refund duty drawback for the period from 1^st June, 1989 to 31^st May, 1990.”

¶15

This Order was challenged by the respondents by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court which was dismissed on the ground of delay

¶16

1 of 4

¶17

2-nmw-187-2013

¶18

and merits by order dated 11^th November, 2011. An affidavit in reply has been filed by Shri Abhaysinh J. Phalake, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Export II, Drawback having office at New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. In paragraph 3 and 4 of the Affidavit in reply, he has stated thus:

¶19

“ 3. I say that Writ Petition No. 871 of 1994 was disposed of by this Honourable court by its order dated 18-09-2009. I say that the above Notice of Motion was filed on 05-06-2013.

¶20

4. I say that the records pertaining to the above proceedings are not available in this office. I say that the Petitioners were requested to submit documents / records in support of their claim. I say that the Petitioners replied that the same are unavailable with them. I say that the department is therefore unable to examine and process the claim for drawback.”

¶21

Shri Phalake has conveniently not referred to the order dated 5^th February, 2010 which was passed in Review Petition No. 3 of 2010 after hearing the respondents. When the review petition was heard on 5^th February, 2010 there was no grievance made that respondents did not have records. The fact that the Special Leave Petition was filed by respondents in the year 2011 shows that record was available with the respondents till 2011.

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

2-nmw-187-2013

¶24

We have perused the averment made in Writ Petition No. 871 of 1994. A chart has been annexed to the said Writ Petition at Exhibit-W giving break up and details of pending draw back claims for the period from 1^st July, 1989 to 31^st December, 1990.

¶25

There are specific averments made in paragraph 19 of the Writ Petition mentioning that details of draw back due to the petitioners have been annexed as Exhibit-W. There is a reply filed to the Writ Petition by Mr. S.G. Gawde, Dy. Commissioner of Customs (Drawback),New Custom House, Ballard Estate Mumbai. Paragraph 12 of the said reply deals with paragraph 19 in which there is a specific reliance placed on details given in Exhibit W. The contents of Exhibit-W have not been disputed in the said reply.

¶26

It is not case made out by the respondents that in terms of the order dated 5^th February, 2010 refund of duty drawback has been issued.

¶27

Thus, the respondents cannot refuse to comply with the order dated 5^th February, 2010 which has attained finality. The ground raised that copies of the proceedings are not available in their office is totally unsustainable.

¶28

Accordingly, we dispose of the Notice of Motion by passing the following order :-

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

2-nmw-187-2013

¶31

(i) We direct respondents to comply with direction in paragraph 3 of order dated 5^th February, 2010 by issuing refund to the petitioners on or before 30^th November, 2017;

¶32

(ii) Disposed of Notice of Motion shall be placed on 4^th December, 2017 under the caption of “ direction” for reporting compliance;

¶33

(iii) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this Order.

¶34

(A.K. MENON, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

¶35

4 of 4

M/S.Biotor Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors./ M/S. Biotor Industries Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Biotor Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors./ M/S. Biotor Industries Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

ruby mills limited Vs the commissioner of central excise,mum-iv

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax -3 and Anr.

Sanjay L. Sonavane Vs the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-2

Aafloat Textile India Ltd(Formerly Known as Akai Impex Ltd) Vs Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Ors.

Aafloat Textile India Ltd(Formerly Known as Akai Impex Ltd) Vs Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Ors.

Zikrullah Abbasali Choudhary Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax