Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1320 - AT - CustomsRecovery of drawback amount under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - shipping bills were not challenged by the Department - levy of penalty on the Company as well as the Director under Section 114(iii) of the said Act - period April 2008 and May 2008 - whether the Department could dispute the grant of DEPB and Drawback benefit in the facts of the present case? - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M/S JAIRATH INTERNATIONAL AND ANR. AND RAJESH DHANDA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (10) TMI 642 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]. In the above mentioned case, the DRI issued Show Cause Notices on the basis of investigation initiated by it to allege that the assessee exporter had fraudulently obtained drawback amount. The DRI conducted search at the various premises of the exporters on the basis of which the DRI alleged that the drawback amount was fraudulently obtained on the basis of willful wrong declaration with ulterior motive to defraud the Revenue. Demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed against which the assessee approached the High Court. The High Court, while relying on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the Department has no power to reassess a shipping bill which was duly assessed by proper officer at the time of export of goods to dispute the export benefit already allowed to the assessee without challenging the shipping bills. In the case of CENTURY KNITTERS (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [2019 (10) TMI 804 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], the High Court took the same view as held in the case of Jairath International, where it was held that inspite of availability of alternative remedy available under 1962 Act, writ petition is maintainable in view of involvement of pure questions of law as well jurisdiction and law enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court and followed by this court time and again. Since the legal position stands already decided by the Hon’ble High Court as well as earlier decisions of this Tribunal, the impugned adjudication orders cannot be legally sustained and hence, the same are set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|