9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the release of the pending duty drawbacks. 3. The Petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of exports primarily in imitation jewellery, handicrafts, etc. for nearly 30 years. The Petitioner was operating as an Export Oriented Unit (hereinafter, 'EOU') until 7th May 2014. After completion of the exit formalities from the EOU Scheme as per Foreign Trade Policy/Handbook of Procedures, the Assistant Development Commissioner issued the Petitioner with a Final De-Bonding Order on 14th May 2025. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that he had been receiving the duty drawback against eligible exports until June 2020, however, thereafter, the Respondent stopped the drawback against Petitioner's eligible exports. The duty drawbacks and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 2015 and the stand of the Respondent in the said proceedings was that the duty drawbacks were inadmissible. The said Show Cause Notice had been issued after invoking the extended period of limitation and that led to the CESTAT setting aside the Show Cause Notice and passing the consequential order. The said order reads as under:- "1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether show cause notice dated 24th August, 2015 have been rightly issued invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. The admitted fact is that the appellant-assessee is 100% EOU and they availed duty drawback on the exports effected by them during 2006-07 to 2013-14. The appellant received objection from the Department vide letter dated 12th March, 2014, regardin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow Cause Notice, the Court deemed it appropriate to refrain from adjudicating on the said issue. The Coordinate Bench in the peculiar facts had directed as under: "80. We do not consider it apposite to decide in the facts of the present case as to whether that the SCN dated 24.08.2015 was issued belatedly or not since the said issue had been decided in favour of the Revenue by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and has not been adjudicated upon by the revision authority having jurisdiction under Section 129DD of the Customs Act. 81.In the peculiar facts of this case where the Revenue originally had not taken any objection on the appeal being heard by the learned CESTAT, and had also, following the order of the learned CEST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
