UNION OF INDIA Vs. WIPRO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purpose of obtaining duty exemption, the respondent filed application for advance licence and twice it was rejected. Thereafter, it filed application claiming duty drawback under Brand Rate Scheme, which was rejected on the ground of delay. A letter was written in this regard explaining the reasons for the delay and seeking reconsideration of the claim. Vide endorsement dated 23-7-2001 again the request was rejected. The same was challenged in the writ petition. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the endorsement and directed the appellants herein to reconsider the application of the respondent on merits. The legality and correctness of the order of learned single Judge is questioned in this appeal.

(2.) The ground of attack is that the learned Single Judge erred in directing to consider the application for condonation of delay on merits and the same is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 11 wherein it is held that the judicial review power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is a decision making process and not to decide the case on merits. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. Another ground of attack is that the respondent was not ignorant of the remedy available under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, particularly the Export Import Policy and Duty Exemption Scheme and there the representations submitted would not enure to its benefit and the time spent thereon. It is contended that the condonation of delay does not come within the purview of Rule 15 of Customs and Central Excise Duties Draw Back Rules, 1971.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent justified the order under appeal. He submitted that the discretionary power is exercised keeping in view para 70 of Export and Import Policy of the Union of India. Therefore, he submits that the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference.