Page 247 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] UNION OF INDIA v. WELCAST STEELS LTD. 229

this Court, in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Lakshmi Electrical Control Sys-
tems Ltd., [2016 (336) E.L.T. 619 (Mad.)] and going through the material on rec-
ord, we are of the view that there are no merits in these appeals. All the substan-
tial questions of law are answered against the revenue, and Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 229 (Kar.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ravi Malimath and Ashok S. Kinagi, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
WELCAST STEELS LTD.
Writ Appeal No. 1353 of 2012 (GM-RES), decided on 4-2-2020
1
Exim - Fuel import under Advance Licence - DEPB rate fixation - In
this case, petitioner has imported fuel under Advance Licence Scheme without
importing any other item under this scheme and has fulfilled export obliga-
tion of amount much more than cost of imported fuel - Clause 4(d) of para 2.4
of Foreign Trade Policy, 2002-2007, explicitly providing that cost of such fuel
should not be taken into account while fixing DEPB rate for such products
against which fuel has been allowed as an input even if fuel is included under
SION - In view of above, no interference required in writ appeal filed against
order of single judge setting aside action taken against petitioner - Writ appeal
not sustainable. [paras 5, 6, 7]
Appeal dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate , for the Appellant.
S/Shri Vikram Nankani, Sr. Counsel for N.C.
Mohan, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - Aggrieved by the order dated 26-8-2011 passed by the Learned
Single Judge in W.P. No. 16716/2007, c/w W.P. No. 9551/2008, in allowing the
writ petition, the respondents have filed this writ appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case :
The present petition is being filed by the petitioner, challenging the
arbitrary and illegal actions of respondent No. 2 ordering imposing a
penalty of Rs. 280 lakhs and suspension of the IEC of the petitioner with
immediate effect till the amounts of penalty is paid by the petitioner and
cancellation of the petitioner’s Advance Licence. The respondent No. 2
also ordered that no further licences or procurement of goods from cana-
lizing agency, or any other permission under the said Act as defined un-
der the Section 2(g) of Chapter I shall be issued to the petitioner firm un-
til the petitioner complied with respondents Order-in-Original dated 26-
9-2007 (received by the petitioner on 29th September, 2007). The cancella-
tion of their Licence and the suspension of their IEC has brought the pe-
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Writ Petition No. 16716 of 2007 (GM-RES) with W.P. No. 9551 of 2008 (T-TAR),
decided on 26-8-2011 by Karnataka High Court.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  247