TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d M/S JAIRATH INTERNATIONAL AND ANR. AND RAJESH DHANDA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2019 (10) TMI 642 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] are raised - In both judgments, we have 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. Reasonable period of limitation to issue show cause notice raising demand of duty drawback - HELD THAT:- Hon ble Supreme Court in STATE OF PUNJAB VERSUS BHATINDA DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK P. UNION LTD. [ 2007 (10) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT] and this court in M/S GUPTA SMELTER PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rawback Rules, 1995 ). Facts: 2 . The few facts emanating from record are that in two of writ petitions bearing No. 14846 14867 of 2019, the Petitioners/Manufacturer Exporters during the period 2010-2011 to 27.12.2012 exported textile goods claiming benefit of duty drawback as permissible under Duty Drawback Rules, 1995, which were framed vide Notification No. 37/95-CUS (NT) dated 26.05.1995, in exercise of power conferred by Section 75 of Customs Act, 1962 (for short 1962 Act ), Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 93A of the Finance Act, 1994. As required under Section 50 of the 1962 Act, the Petitioners as and when exported goods filed shipp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 (for short Valuation Rules, 2007 ) read with Section 14 of the 1962 Act and re-determined in terms of Rules 6 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2007. The Petitioners were further called upon to show cause as to why duty drawback should not be disallowed and recovered from them under Rule 16 of Drawback Rules, 1995. The Respondent No. 3 vide impugned common order-inoriginal dated 31.3.2019 rejected contention of the Petitioners and upheld reduced FOB value and confirmed demand of duty drawback as proposed in the show cause notice. The Respondent while passing order-in-original dated 31.3.2019 imposed penalty upon Petitioner-exporters as well its partners/dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well jurisdiction and law enunciated by Hon ble Supreme Court and followed by this court time and again. On the question of reasonable period of limitation to issue show cause notice raising demand of duty drawback, relying upon judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab versus Bhatinda District Co-Op. Milk P. Union Ltd.2007 (217) ELT 325 and this court in Gupta Smelters Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India 2019 (365) ELT 77 (P H), GPI Textiles Limited versus Union of India 2018 (362) ELT 388 (P H), CCE Vs Hari Concast (P) Ltd. 2009 (242) E.L.T. 12, we have held that period of 5 years from the date of export/assessment is a reasonable period. Relying upon judgment of this court in the case of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
