9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligence (DGCEI), who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, the officers felt that the respondent had received the excess duty drawback in respect of the exports made by them. The respondents accepted the wrong claim of duty drawback and made payment of Rs.5 lakhs by cheque on 31.8.01. Another payment of Rs.2.5 lakhs was made by cheque, encashed by Revenue on 12.10.01. 4. In as much as no adjudication proceedings for confirmation of excess claimed drawback were initiated against the respondent for longer period, they filed refund claim of Rs.2.5 lakhs on 11.3.05. The said refund claim was returned to the respondent on the ground that the same related to the recovery of drawback and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forcefully obtained through post dated cheques and it was got realized to the Govt. account then due and proper proceeding ought to have been initiated by this time i.e. within 5 years of the payment of such sum. In my view, recovering back, the alleged inadmissible drawback amount sanctioned to an exporter, the proceeding has to be initiated under provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. If the custom authorities at port, for any reason, have not initiated the proceedings then, even the excise officers who are customs officers by virtue of provisions of Section 12 of Central Excise Act read with notification issued thereunder, they could have also initiated proceedings for appropriating the sum, if it was wrongly paid by cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned customs and central excise authorities cannot be allowed to have a wrong impression or appreciation of law in as much as that for recovering the wrong and inadmissible drawback claims from an exporter, there is a unlimited period available to them or the period as prescribed under Limitation Act, 1963 are available to them." Admittedly, the amount in question was deposited in 2001 and for more than a period of 4 years, even the proceedings to confirm the said amount deposited by the assessee at the time of investigation, had not been initiated by the Revenue. As rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has no authority or jurisdiction to keep the said deposit amount with them for unlimited time in absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
