VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-assessee exported aluminium electrolytic capacitors through 16 shipping bills on 28-10-1991 after the respondent No. 3 had passed an order of clearance of export under section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. Admittedly, the exported items were exempted from duty and the assessee was entitled for the duty drawback. On lodging the claim for duty drawback the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 14 crores against the said 16 shipping bills. It appears that subsequently the revenue, on investigations, felt that the duty drawback was claimed without complying with the statutory provisions and hence, on 23-6-1992, a demand notice under Rule 14 of the Duty drawback Rules came to be issued against the assessee. This notice was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1424 of 1992 which was disposed of on 29-6-1992 by granting liberty to the assessee to file an appeal before respondent no. 4 against the demand notice received on certain conditions. The assessee has filed such an appeal and the same is pending.

(2.) IT is admitted fact that the revenue did not invoke its powers under section 129-DA of the Customs Act, 1962 before the demand notice under Rule 14 was issued. After the appeal was filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Court (Mane and Dani, JJ.) in Writ Petition no. 1424 of 1992, the respondent No. 2 has passed a review order on 14-10-1992 by invoking his powers under section 129-D (2) of the Customs Act. Pursuant to this order, the revenue has filed an appeal before respondent No. 4 on 16-10-1992 and the same is pending. The review order passed by respondent No. 2 on 14-10-1992 has been assailed in the present petition filed before this Court on 28-4-1993. By an order dated 27-4-1993, this Court (Mane and Dani, JJ.)granted Rule and interim stay in terms of prayer E with liberty to apply. The revenue has filed its affidavit-in-reply on 27-10-1993. While the petition is pending, Civil application No. 2323 of 1995 has been moved with a prayer to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 27-4-1993 or in the alternative, prayer was made to fix the writ petition for early final hearing. The assessee has filed affidavit-in-reply to the said Civil Application on 30-7-1999. By consent of the parties, the writ petition was fixed for final hearing pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 28-9-1999.

(3.) THE order passed by respondent No. 2 on 14-2-1999 under section 129-D (2) of the Customs Act has been questioned mainly on the ground that sub-section (5) of the said section operates as a bar against the powers available under sub-section (2) of the said Act. In the instant case, section 129-D (5) of the Customs Act reads thus :