Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1377 - AT - CustomsDemand for recovery of drawback, sanctioned and paid to the respective exporters - validity of recovery in the absence of bar of limitation in rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 - quantum of market value of export goods - HELD THAT:- The entire proceedings is premised on the acceptance of market value of the export goods as being less than the drawback amount claimed and sanctioned to them. It is also noted that the Customs, Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, invoked by the adjudicating authority and claimed by the Learned Authorised Representative to be invoked without bar of limitation, arises from the power conferred under section 75 of Customs Act, 1962 and section 37 of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. There is no doubt that rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 does not prescribe any limitation; indeed it should not have to as the empowerment of the sanctioning authority is limited to computation of eligibility from the scheduled rate. Though the time-limit has been held by the Tribunal to be non-existent in re Sun Exports [2008 (4) TMI 151 - CESTAT MUMBAI], it is found that the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in re Pratibha Syntex Ltd [2013 (3) TMI 480 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that in the facts of the present case, the show cause notices which have been issued after a period of more than three years from the date when the drawback came to be paid to the petitioners, cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to have been issued within a reasonable period of time. Under the circumstances, the show cause notices have to be held to be bad on the ground of being time barred. Once the show cause notices are held to be invalid, the very substratum of all the orders passed pursuant thereto, including the impugned orders would fall, rendering the same unsustainable. Thus, there are no record in the impugned order that the bar of limitation was considered by the adjudicating authority or that it was even raised before him. The appellant did not question the correctness of the valuation of export goods undertaken but did, nevertheless, seek cross-examination of certain persons which had been refused; in the light of the substantial delay between the exports and the initiation of proceedings for recovery, this aspect is relevant. In order to enable proper appreciation of these issues now raised, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority for disposal of the issues that the appellants may raise - appeal disposed off.
|