LEOTEX Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge relegating the appellant herein to avail the statutory remedy is correct or not is the issue involved in this Writ Appeal. The grievance projected by the appellant pertains to the rights and liberties of the appellants to have the benefit under the Duties Drawback Scheme in connection with the export business being pursued by the appellant. The appellant/petitioner is an exporter of coir products and originally he sought to have the benefit under the DEPB scheme. But, subsequently, the appellant found that he would be benefited more by virtue of the terms of another scheme declared by the Government, i.e., the Drawback Scheme governed by the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. It was in the said circumstances that, the appellant /petitioner approached this Court by filing WF (C) No. 5549 of 2007 [2012 (281) E.L.T. 173 (Ker.)]. After hearing both sides, the said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext. P6 judgment referring to the specific contention of the writ petitioner that he was entitled to have the benefit of Rule 12 of the Duty Drawback Rules exempting the writ petitioner from complying with the provisions of the Rules and accordingly, the matter was disposed to have the claim considered with reference to the Rules as aforesaid. Pursuant to the said verdict, the matter was considered by the competent authority, who passed Ext. P7 order dated 20-9-2011 whereby the claim was rejected, which made the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing the instant Writ Petition, WP (C) No. 31671 of 2011.

(2.) The case of the appellant/petitioner was considered especially with regard to the submission that the issue was squarely covered by Ext. P6 judgment rendered earlier and as such, there was no point in availing the alternative remedy, which compelled the writ petitioner to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition under Article226of the Constitution of India. After going through Ext. P6 judgment, the learned Single Judge observed that there was no positive direction declaring the rights and liberties of the writ petitioner to have the benefit of the scheme under Rule 12 of the Duty Drawback Rules and that only the direction was to have the claim considered in accordance with Rule 12 of the above Rules. It was after considering the matter in accordance with the direction given as aforesaid that Ext. P7 order was passed by the concerned respondent, which was the subject matter for challenge. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner was entitled to challenge the said order by way of further appeal and this being the position, there was no need or necessity to have it considered invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed, which was under challenge in this Writ Appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents as well.