Page 187 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] K. DHANDAPANI & CO. LTD. v. D.G.F.T., NEW DELHI 369

CASES CITED
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering Works (P) — 1992 Supp 1 SCR 732
— Referred ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 24]
Commissioner v. Femco Filters Pvt. Ltd. — 2007 (218) E.L.T.A124 (S.C.) — Referred .................. [Para 21]
Commissioner v. Pennar Industries Ltd. — 2015 (322) E.L.T. 402 (S.C.) — Referred ..................... [Para 22]
Commissioner v. S.R.F. Ltd. — 2004 (164) E.L.T. 412 (Mad.) — Referred ........................................ [Para 22]
Commissioner v. Settlement Commission — 2005 (179) E.L.T. 386 (Cal.) — Referred .................. [Para 22]
Delta Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector — 1995 (77) E.L.T. 544 (A.P.) — Referred ................................. [Para 19]
DSJ Communications v. Union of India — 2014 (309) E.L.T. 230 (Del.) — Referred ...................... [Para 33]
FAL Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2008 (231) E.L.T. 524 (Tribunal) — Referred ................. [Para 20]
FAL Industries Ltd. v. Directorate General of Foreign Trade — 2014 (306) E.L.T. 58 (Mad.)
— Referred ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 22]
Femco Filters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (203) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal) — Referred .... [Paras 20, 21]
Income Tax Officer v. Gwailor Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co., Ltd.
— AIR 1976 (SCC) 43 — Referred................................................................................................ [Para 19]
Indian Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam — AIR1997 SC 3054 — Distinguished ................ [Paras 19, 23, 42]
Krishena Kumar v. Union of India — 1990 AIR 1782 — Referred ..................................................... [Para 24]
Mohandas Issardas v. A.N. Sattananthan — AIR 1955 Bom 113 — Referred .................................. [Para 24]
Philips (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2001 (137) E.L.T. 697 (Tribunal) — Referred ................... [Para 20]
Pratibha Syntext Ltd. v. Union of India — 2003 (157) E.L.T. 141 (Bom.) — Referred ..................... [Para 22]
Rexnord Electronics and Controls Ltd. v. Union of India — 2008 (224) E.L.T. 184 (S.C.)
— Relied on ........................................................................................................................ [Paras 22, 44, 45]
S.R.F.Ltd. — 2003 (158) E.L.T. 788 (Sett. Comm.) — Referred ............................................................ [Para 22]
Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 1996 (88) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.) — Referred .......... [Para 22]
Union of India v. Madras Steel Re-Rollers Association — 2012 (278) E.L.T. 584 (S.C.)
— Referred ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 31]
V.V.S. Sugars v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh — AIR 1999 (SC) 2124 — Referred ....................... [Paras 19, 23]
Vidarbha Veneer Industries Ltd. — 2007 (220) E.L.T. 589 (Sett. Comm.) — Referred .................... [Para 20]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
D.G.F.T. Public Notice No. 5 (RE-99)/1997-2002, dated 6-4-1999 ............................................ [Paras 32, 54]
D.G.F.T. Public Notice No. 22 (RE-2013)/2009-14, dated 12-8-2013 .................................. [Paras 29, 52, 56]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri S. Murugappan and G. Derrick Sam, for the
Petitioner.
S/Shri N. Rajan, SCGSC, K.S. Ramasamy, CGSC
and K. Gunasekar, SPCCG, for the Respondent.
[Order (Common)]. - Common issue that arises for consideration in the-
se two writ petitions are whether the interest which are sought to be recovered
from the petitioner can be imposed under the provisions of the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 on account of their failure of the peti-
tioner to fulfill the conditions of Export Promotion Capital Goods scheme licence
read with Notification No. 160/92-Cus., dated 20-4-1992 issued under Section
25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. As the issues are common in both the writ peti-
tions, they are being disposed by this common order.
2. In W.P. No. 38158 of 2003, the petitioner has challenged the im-
pugned order, dated 30-10-2003 from File No. 20/414/95/EPCG-III/5011 passed
by the 3rd respondent Foreign Trade Development Officer, New Delhi.
3. By the said order, the 3rd respondent had called upon the petitioner
to pay a sum of Rs. 6,48,260/- as balance interest on the delayed payment of duty
after appropriating the amounts paid by the petitioner on various dates.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  187