IFB INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) This petition impugns an order passed by Respondent No. 4 and seeks declaration that the said order is nullity. It seeks further direction to the competent authority to decide the matter in dispute, after granting personal hearing in accordance with the direction given by this Court in terms of prayer (b) to the earlier petition, filed by the petitioner in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 398 of 2006. Earlier petition bearing Writ Petition No. 398 of 2006 [2007 (211) E.L.T. 366 (Bom.)] was disposed of at the stage of admission by an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6-11-2006. Subject matter of the said petition pertained to the rejection of an application for fixation of Brand Rate of duty drawback under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. It was the contention of the Petitioner that in the earlier petition, Respondent No. 2 i.e. Joint Secretary (Drawback), the Directorate of Drawback, Ministry of Finance was the competent authority vested with the powers to condone delay in filing of such an application and in spite of such application being made to him, the Respondent No. 4 had wrongly passed the impugned order dated 12-2-2007. It appears that at the stage of hearing for admission, Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the said petition had submitted that if this Court so directed, the competent authority would hear the petitioner's application afresh for condonation of delay and pass appropriate orders. The petition was therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as under:

(3.) The competent authority was directed to dispose of the application for condonation of delay within a period of three months. It appears that after the judgment of High Court in the earlier Writ Petition, the papers were sent to the competent authority. Instead of deciding the matter of condonation of delay afresh the competent authority vide letters dated 22-12-2006 and 15-1-2007, without hearing the petitioner, communicated certain directions to the present Respondent No. 4. The said directions are reproduced in paragraph three of the impugned order dated 12- 2-2007 and from the same it is evident that the competent authority has decided the matter relating to condonation of delay against the petitioner on merits.