Delhi High Court - Orders
Angelic Creations vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 December, 2022
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11702/2022
ANGELIC CREATIONS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr. Vikas
S & Mr. Ayush Mittal, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pavan Narang, Sr. Panel Counsel
with Mr. Himanshu Sethi & Ms.
Aishwarya Chhabra, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD
with Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Mr. Sanyam
Suri & Ms. Arshya Singh, Advs. for
R2.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR
KAURAV
ORDER
% 01.12.2022
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Central Government (revisional authority) rejecting the petitioner's revision against an appellate order upholding the order denying duty drawback.
2. A reading of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner's request for duty drawback against the exports of handicrafts made under shipping bills (ten in number) was denied essentially for four reasons. First, that the petitioner had not received the export proceeds in the designated account.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:07.12.2022Second, that the export proceeds were received beyond the stipulated period of nine months. Third, that the export proceeds were received from another entity which was not mentioned in the shipping bills presented to customs. Fourth, that the bills presented to the customs were not identical to the bills claimed by the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire sale proceeds had been received within the extended period of fifteen months. The revisional authority has erred in holding that the said extension is automatic and that a positive act is required from the RBI. Second, he submits that the exports were made from EDI (Electronic Data Interchange), which does not provide for the facility of naming the third party. However, a tripartite agreement was filed with the Authorised Dealer (AD) and therefore, the AD has furnished a letter confirming the receipt of export proceeds. Lastly, he submits that the proceeds were not received in the designated account because the same was frozen and the petitioner required to make payments to its suppliers. In the circumstances the petitioner had opened a separate account with another bank (ICICI, Moradabad). He, however, emphasised that there can be no dispute that the petitioner had received the export proceedings.
4. He seeks time to prepare the matter and place the relevant material to support its contention.
5. Issue notice.
6. Mr. Pavan Narang accepts notice for respondent no. 1 & 2 and Mr. Singh accepts notice for respondent no.3.
7. The respondents may file a counter affidavit(s) within a period of four weeks. The rejoinder be filed before the next date of hearing. Since it Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:07.12.2022 appears that there is no serious dispute as to the relevant facts, the parties are also at liberty to file written submissions before the next date of hearing.
8. List on 11.01.2023.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
DECEMBER 1, 2022
Ch Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:Dushyant Rawal
Signing Date:07.12.2022