9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2020 passed under Rules 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 read with Section 75 and 75A(2) of the Customs Act,1962 can be quashed by this Court on the ground that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the year 2009 and a personal hearing was granted to them in the very same year but the impugned order came to be passed only in the year 2020 after a lapse of more than eleven years. 2. Under the impugned Order-in-Original, the petitioner has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs.1,74,441/- in terms of Section 75(1) read with Rule 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 and another sum of Rs.63,563/- towards interest as per the provisions of Section 75A(2) of the Customs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel for the petitioner referred to supra squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhattinda District Co-operative Milk P. Union Ltd., as referred to supra, though dealing with a case involving reopening of an assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 has held that though limitation is not prescribed under Section 21 of the said Act, the statutory authority must exercise jurisdiction, within a reasonable period. In fact, the learned Single Judge of this Court in J.Sheik Parith's case referred to supra has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while coming to the conclusion that the statutory authority must exercise jurisdiction, within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned Order-in-Original as the petitioner had already paid the said amount in the year 2007 itself. 9. The petitioner claims that the said amount was paid under protest, though there is no documentary evidence produced by the petitioner before this Court to show that the same was paid under protest. Even assuming that the petitioner's statement that the said amount was paid under protest is to be accepted by this Court, even otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled for refund, as any refund claim will also be barred by limitation. When the petitioner has pleaded before this Court that on the ground of limitation the Order-in-Original ought not to have been passed, the same yardstick applies to the petitioner as well. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
