Ajay Kumar Basu, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution taken out by the petitioner against the order passed by the Commissioner (Revision Application), Government of India and for issuance of appropriate writ.
(2.) The matter arises out of 'drawback of duties of customs' on the imported material, namely, copper used in the manufacture of super synthetic enamelled copper wire and subsequently exported. Mr. M. Banerji, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the Customs authorities have arbitrarily and illegally rejected his client's petition for the said drawback as contemplated under Section 75 of the New Customs Act. Mr. Banerii contends that he first claimed for the drawback before the Assistant Collector of Customs. But by the order dated the 31st December. 1965, the said Assistant Collector rejected the claim for drawback as inadmissible. From that order his client appealed to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, for the said drawback of duties on 92 cases of super synthetic enamelled copper wire. But by en order dated the 29th September, 1966, the said Appellate Collector of Customs after giving personal hearing rejected the claim of the petitioner. From that order of the Appellate Collector, Mr. Banerji's client went up to the Central Government in revision and asked for personal hearing, but the said Commissioner of Revision Application without giving a hearing to the appellants rejected their application.
(3.) Mr, Banerji submits that firstly the reasons given by the Commissioner in his order, copy of which is annexure 'E' to the petition the Commissioner has rejected the appeal on different grounds end not on the grounds by which the said appeal was rejected by the Lower Appellate Collector of Customs as would be found in the order, being annexures 'C' and 'D' to the petition.;