Page 132 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

354 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

der the said section, the powers are also conferred with the authority to confis-
cate the goods. According to her submissions, the contentions of the petitioners
that the advance authorization has not been cancelled and that the license is not
cancelled by the authority is not justified. According to her submissions, there
were misused of the advance authorization scheme which was made by the peti-
tioners and, therefore, the EODC stipulates and provides that the custom author-
ity is empowered to take action against the licensee at any stage for misuse of the
scheme.
9.3 Ms. Shruti Pathak, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has sub-
mitted that during the course of investigation, it was found that there is differ-
ence in daily stock production and clearance statement and physical verification
was also not done by the concerned officers and they did not give any intimation
of the receipt of the goods without CT-3 to the Central Excise Officer.
9.4 Ms. Shruti Pathak, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has sub-
mitted that the duty which is demanded by the custom authority is on different
footing then the refund from the TED. She has submitted that the custom duty
has been demanded on the goods which were imported by wrongly availing cus-
tom exemption notification and the Central Excise Duty has been demanded on
clandestine clearance of the furnished goods in the open market.
9.5 Regarding decisions relied upon by learned senior counsel for the
petitioners, Ms. Shruti Pathak, Learned Assistant Government Pleader has sub-
mitted that those decisions are not applicable in the present case and the decision
of the Delhi High Court has been stayed by the Supreme Court. On all these
grounds, Ms. Shruti Pathak, Learned Counsel has urged to dismiss the present
petitions as there is alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners.
9.6 Ms. Shruti Pathak, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, while
submitting written submission, has relied upon the following decisions.
(i) Sheshank Sea Foods Private Limited v. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 755
= 1996 (88) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.);
(ii) Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2015 (326) E.L.T.
532 (Guj.);
(iii) Mangali Impex Ltd. v. Union of India, 2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.);
(iv) Deepak Bajaj v. The Commissioner of Customs, Madras High Court
rendered in W.P. (MD) No. 20021 of 2018, dated 13-12-2018;
(v) Commissioner of Customs v. T.L. Verma, Punjab-Haryana High Court
rendered in CUSAP No. 20 of 2018, dated 28-8-2018;
10. In rejoinder, Mr. Mihir Joshi, Learned Senior Counsel for the peti-
tioners has submitted that in the present case, the DGFT has issued certificate
and advance authorization is still not cancelled. He has submitted that the de-
mand of excise duty is unwarranted as the chapter of excise duty is already
closed. He has submitted that the refund has been given by the DGFT after due
verification and the powers of suspension and cancellation is with DGFT under
Section 9 of the Foreign Trade Act, 1992. While referring to Rule 10 of the Foreign
Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, he has submitted that the Director General or the
Licensing Authority has enough power to cancel the licensse in the eventuality
which are narrated therein. While referring to Form ARE-3 at page No. 112 of the
paper-book, Mr. Joshi, Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that this form has
been counter signed by the authority and after due verification of the documents,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  132