TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment had been made - High Court under writ jurisdiction cannot direct the customs authorities to ignore time limit provided under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 even though High Court itself may not be found by the time limit of said section - claim hit by limitation - - - 153/2010-Cus - Dated:- 12-4-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri C.N. Sree Kumar, Advocate, for the Assessee. T.M. Vijya Kuram, Assistant Commissioner, for the Department. [Order]. - This Revision Application has been filed by the applicant The Kerala Minerals Metals Ltd. (KMML) against Order in Appeal No. 297/08 dated 3-11-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Customs House, Cochin, in the matter arising out of Order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on account of an Order passed for payment is made by Commissioner (Appeals), the exporter had to file the claim within 3 months from the date of receipt of Commissioner (Appeals) s Order. Accordingly the appellants were requested to produce the documentary evidence with proper acknowledegment by the department for having filed the claim as stipulated under the Drawback Rules which they failed. As such, it appeared that the release of the balance Drawback amount was hit by the limitation of time and erroneous payment had been made, for which an Order-in-Original No. 09/07 dated 17-8-07 was issued against the applicants preferred an appeal before the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who after due consideration of submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 dated 17-8-07 to pay the amount of Rs. 12,85,326/- along with interest to the Department is illegal and unsustainable. The applicant is not liable to repay the said amount of Rs. 12,85,326/- to the Department. Applicant is entitled to get and retain the amount of Rs. 12,85,326/- as it is legitimately due to him as drawback duty. 4. Further on 15-3-2010, this office received a copy of Hon ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam order WP(C) 4360/10(T) dated 10-2-2010 directing this office to take a decision in this Revision Application within a period of three months after hearing a representative of the Applicants. 5. Accordingly a personal hearing was fixed on 30-3-2010 which was attended by both i.e. the Applicants as well as by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otherwise) as forthcoming in this case are of confirmed evidential value so as to establish the contradictory claim of Applicants and that of Respondents for submission of impugned (supplementary) claim within the statutory time limit. 9. Government prefers to address both the above issues one by one. As regards, first issue, the provision of Rule 5(5) of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules 1995 are to be looked into. The said is reproduced below for ready reference : 5. Manner and time of claiming drawback on goods exported other than by post : (1) (2) ______________ (3 ______________ (4) ______________ (5) Where any order for payment of drawback is made by the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] that simple and plain wordings of the statute are to be strictly adhered with. So, Government answers this question in negative i.e. not in favour of the applicants. The applicants were required to file drawback claim in the manner prescribed in this rule within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 9. Government now analyses the second issue which is on the point of applicant s claim that the impugned supplementary Drawback claim was submitted/filed on 4-2-2004 through courier Sky Pack Service Specialists Ltd. which was (said to be) received by the addressee (Department) on 5-2-2004 as per computer generated receipt of above Courier. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued finds that there being no prescribed time limit for such action under Rule 7 of Drawback Rules and no other Time-limits from any - other section of Customs Act, 1962 can be imported and made to be prevailed herein, the said Show-Cause-notice is perfectly legal and proper. 12. Finally, Government while following the principles of judicial discipline is in conformity with the views of Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatics Company reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) that High Court under writ jurisdiction cannot direct the customs authorities to ignore time limit provided under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 even though High Court itself may not be found by the time limit of said s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
