Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 2050 - MADRAS HIGH COURTDuty drawback - time limitation - absence of a provision for time limitation in Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the two shipping bill Nos. 11 and 29, dated 18.07.1986 and 13.02.1987, wherein the sanctioned letter fixing erroneous rate was made on 17.10.1987. The recovery letter came to be issued on 04.04.1989 and adjudication came to be made on 16.10.1989. The withdrawal was shown on 04.05.1990 and the show cause notice was issued on 28.05.1990. The only explanation given in the impugned order in the revision is that since Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 does not prescribe a time limitation, the ground of limitation cannot be relied upon. Section 28 of the Act relates to recovery of duties, short levies duties or erroneously refunded within its prescribed time limitation of six months from the relevant date, from the date of notice. Though the section relates to recovery of duties, an analogy can be drawn from the said provisions for identifying what a “reasonable time” could be in a case of this nature, since Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 has been framed by invoking the powers conferred under Customs Act. By drawing an analogy from Section 28 of the Customs Act and applying it to the facts of the present case it is seen that the notice, being one made after a period of six months, cannot be held to be done within a reasonable time. This Court is of the view that the impugned orders passed in these Writ Petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay - Petition allowed.
|