Dismissed

M/S.Samrat Exporters & Importers v. Asst.Commr of Central Excise and Customs

Kerala HC3 Apr 2018WP(C)/1171/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition against a customs demand notice was dismissed as the petitioner could have raised merits in a timely appeal. The Court, however, permitted the petitioner to discharge the liability in 12 monthly instalments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to discharge the liability in 12 monthly instalments starting from the next month onwards.

M/S.Samrat Exporters & Importers Vs Asst.Commr of… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1171 of 2007

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

M/S.SAMRAT EXPORTERS & IMPORTERS, KOLAYARKAD, MANNAAPRA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, A.M.MOIDU.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, PALAKKAD-II DIVISION, PALAKKAD.

¶11

2. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT-1.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

27.04.2018

¶16

WP(C).No. 1171 of 2007

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)'	EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE LOP DATED 20.08.1999.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE SHAW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 05.07.2001.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE DATED 23.09.2002.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CUS. APPEAL 4/2005 DATED 05.09.2005 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.10/2005 DATED 30.09.2005.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.02/2006 DATED 08.02.2006.
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER NO.13/10/2006 CESTAT, BANGALORE DATED 20.11.2006.
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE DATED 30.12.2006.
EXHIBIT P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER OF COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE DATED 04.07.2005.
EXHIBIT P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR STAY FOR DEBONDING TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DATED 22.08.2005.
EXHIBIT P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2007 NOTICE TO DEMAND TO DEFAULTER.
EXHIBIT P12:	TRUE COPY OF THE WAGES SHEET FOR DECEMBER, 2006.
EXHIBIT P13:	TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK FOR THE YEAR 2006.
EXHIBIT P14:	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF STATE BANK OF INDIA FROM FROM 01.01.2005 TO 28.12.2006.
EXHIBIT P15:	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 09.02.2007.
EXHIBIT P16:	CHEQUE NO.654667 DATED 19.04.2007.
EXHIBIT P17:	NOTICE TO PERSONAL HEARING BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX & (APPEALS).
EXHIBIT P18:	LETTER DATED 08.06.2007 BY MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK MANJAPRA BRANCH ACKNOWLEDGING ENCASHMENT OF CHEQUE OF RS.2.5 LAKS ON 05.05.2007.

¶19

WP(C).No. 1171 of 2007

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 20.07.2004 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL DATED 14.07.2005. //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE

¶22

Msd. 27.04.2015

¶23

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ========================= W.P.(C).No.1171/2007

¶24

¶25

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2018

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner is a 100% export oriented unit in Palakkad District and was granted a Letter of Permission (LOP) for processing and export of buffalo meat and tapioca on 10.12.1999 for a period of 3 years. The petitioner was also granted a Private Bonded Warehouse licence on 20.1.2000 for processing export of buffalo meat and tapioca without payment of duty based on the terms and conditions in the LOP. Both permissions expired as the same were not renewed.

¶28

The petitioner had imported Capital Goods which were eligible for exemption from customs duty due to the export commitment of the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to fulfill the export obligation. Therefore, the conditions for import stood violated and a notice of demand was

¶29

wpc 1171/2007

¶30

-:2:-

¶31

issued. Ext.P11 is the said notice. The petitioner impugns the said demand notice in this writ petition.

¶32

It is to be noted that the duty is covered by a bank guarantee provided by the petitioner which was not renewed. The petitioner's appeal was unsuccessful as it was filed out of time. The appellate authority did not consider the issue on merits.

¶33

The petitioner is now attempting to put forward a case based on merit. There is no error in the decision making process. All that was canvassed by the petitioner in this writ petition could have been canvassed in the appeal. If the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the petitioner cannot resurrect such ground which could have been canvassed before the appellate authority, by way of a writ petition. Since there is no error in the decision making process, the writ petition is only to be dismissed.

¶34

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for instalment facility to the

¶35

wpc 1171/2007

¶36

-:3:-

¶37

petitioner to discharge the liability. Considering the said submission, the petitioner is permitted to discharge the liability in 12 monthly instalments starting from next month onwards.

¶38

In the light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶41

M/S.Samrat Exporters & Importers v. Asst.Commr of Central Excise and Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Samrat Exporters & Importers v. Asst.Commr of Central Excise and Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lisamma Joseph@ Lisamma Tom Vs Shaji.K.G

G.Unnikrishnan Vs Repco Home Finance Limited

M.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Jannet Perera Vs the Additional Tahsildar,Kanayannur Taluk

Tresly James Vs the Village Officer

C.N.Mohandas Vs the Ombudsman for Local Self Govt.Instit