TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, apart from the data being available electronically, the department did not serve any notice or any information to the petitioners in hard form. The respondents have also failed to substantiate that the petitioners had access to the electronic data at that material point of time and, therefore, were aware of the queries made - The petitioners, however, lodged a supplementary claim immediately upon coming to know of the decision of the authorities to scroll the subject shipping bill as zero drawback and sent it to history. Such conduct also establishes that, the authorities have not adjudicated upon the merits of the claim for duty drawback. The authorities are requested to adjudicate upon the claim for duty drawback - Appeal allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the drawback claim in respect of the shipping bill no. 5318141 was not credited. The petitioner had made representations dated April 9, 2010, June 7, 2010 and September 3, 2010 before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Drawback department. However, the petitioner was informed that, the Customs authorities had raised queries in the EDI System in respect of the shipping bill no. 5318141 for the submission of ARE-1 and Bank Realization Certificate. The petitioner was not aware of such queries as the petitioner did not have access to the EDI System at that point of time. Upon coming to know of such fact, the petitioner had filed a supplementary claim under cover of a letter dated December 6, 2010. The authorities had afforded the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of drawback was rejected on EDI System due to the petitioner failing to give answer to the queries raised therein. The rejection of the claim by the EDI System is not under challenge in the present writ petition. The so-called supplementary claim lodged by the petitioner is barred by the laws of limitation. Such supplementary claim cannot, therefore, be adjudicated upon. The petitioner is guilty of delay and latches. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the duty drawback as claimed. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. The petitioner had exported prime mild steel concast billets by two separate shipping bills bearing nos. 5318141 and 5318142 both dated July 12, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril 9, 2010 in respect of both the shipping bills. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a supplementary claim in respect of the disputed shipping bill on June 6, 2010 and proceeded to submit documents on June 7, 2010, September 3, 2010 and December 6, 2010. The order in original had held that, the lodgment of the supplementary claim would be dated December 6, 2010 and, therefore, such claim was barred in terms of Rule 15 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. Such order in original dated December 30, 2011 was reversed on appeal by the Order dated February 6, 2012. The appellate authority had found that, since the petitioners were not informed of the queries raised electronically, therefore, the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
