TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings of drawback for alleged non-realization of export proceeds can be sustained having been made after close to 12 years since the subject export. 2. The impugned recovery proceeding has been challenged on the premise that the impugned order of adjudication has been made almost after 8 years from the date of shipping bill. As a matter of fact, all these shipping bills relates to the period of 2004-09 in respect of which rebate / drawback was granted which was sought to be recovered on the premise that the petitioner had not furnished documentary evidence to indicate that the sale proceeds in respect of export has been realized vide show cause notice dated 17.08.2010, to which, reply was filed by the petitioner on 14.09.2010 enclosing evidence in the form of Chartered Accountant Certificate revealing that the petitioner had realized the sale proceeds in respect of the subject exports. After a hiatus of more than 7 years, a second show cause notice dated 10.03.2017 was issued proposing once again to recover the rebate/ drawback in respect of the very same shipping bills/ transaction. A reply was once again filed on 20.03.2017 along with . Thereafter, notice for personal he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in compliance of impugned proceedings. It is trite law that any action with regard to which a limitation is not prescribed ought to be taken within a reasonable time. Now, what would constitute reasonable time would depend on the scheme of the Act. It may be relevant to bear in mind the provisions relating to recovery of duty which has been short levied or short paid, the limitation of 6 months/ 1 year was prescribed in cases where there is short levy of duty and in cases where the duty has not been levied or paid in view of collusion or suppression of facts, the limitation prescribed is 5 years during the relevant period. 7. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments wherein this Court had held that in the absence of prescription of limitation by the statute for taking any action or passing order it must be done within a reasonable period. i. S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 181: 15... It may well be that for an exercise of the suo motu power of revision also, the revisional authority has to initiate the proceeding within a reasonable time. Any unreasonable delay in exercise may affect its validity. What ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iming refund of erroneous excise payment of drawback. But it does not mean that in the absence of any time prescribed, such a refund can be claimed according to the respondents own whims and fancies. It is a well settled proposition laid down in various decisions, that in circumstances where the statute does not prescribe time limitation, such an exercise should be completed within a reasonable period. The stand of the respondents in the revision is that in the absence of a provision for time limitation, the ground of limitation cannot be sustained. 9. The learned Judge thereafter proceeded to place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of India vs. Citedel Fine Pharmaceuticals reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 515 (S.C.) while proceeding to hold that though no reasonable time has expressly been prescribed for recovery of drawback, it may be necessary to draw an analogy from Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, to fix what may constitute a reasonable time within which the recovery must be of short levy/ short paid duty, rebate must be recovered. The following portions of the judgment is relevant and thus extracted below: 6. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawback claims. Subsequently, by the clarification issued vide letter dated 19th August 1999, C.B.E. C. clarified that the earlier clarification of 20th September 1996 was operative from the date of issuance of the original notification and was not only prospective. It appears that it is only pursuant to the subsequent letter dated 19th August 1999, that the show cause notices have been issued in February 2000. Thus, though the Customs Authorities were well aware about the clarification in respect of the drawback paid on goods falling under condition (c) of the Note below sub-serial No. 5404 (1) of the Schedule, no action was taken at the relevant time to recover the drawback paid to the petitioner beyond the ceiling limit provided thereunder. It is only in February 2000, after a period of more than three years that by issuance of show cause notices, differential amount of drawback was sought to be recovered from the petitioners. The revisional authority in the earlier order dated 28th June, 2002 has held that the Drawback Rules do not provide for any time limit and as such there is no time limit for issue of demand notice for recovery of drawback paid erroneously or in excess u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
