2010 (9) TMI 683 - HC - Customs

Duty drawback - Demand - It is not clear as to how those orders are anyway helpful to the petitioner, especially when the relief was given in a particular instance and they do not lay down a general precedent in terms of law - Instead of doing justice, it will be derailing the law made by the Parliament. The petitioner has not made out any case for exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Under the said circumstances, the petitioner, having missed the bus in three successive forums, cannot consider the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the last forum - The Writ Petition lacks bona fides and accordingly, the same stands dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of Assistant Commissioner of Customs regarding repayment of excess paid drawback amount and interest. Appeal filed beyond limitation period under Customs Act, 1962. Petitioner's attempt to seek remedy from different forums. Invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for condonation of delay. Dismissal of Writ Petition on grounds of lack of bona fides.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition was filed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs demanding repayment of excess paid drawback amount along with interest. The petitioner's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) for being filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the South Zonal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which also rejected the appeal, stating it was not maintainable before the Tribunal. The respondents argued that the only appropriate forum for appeal beyond the Tribunal is the Central Government, as per Section 129-DD(2) of the Act, with a prescribed limitation period for filing an application. The respondents contended that the petitioner had exhausted all available forums and remedies, thereby urging for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

The petitioner's counsel cited previous court decisions where delays were condoned for justifiable reasons. However, the Court noted that such decisions do not establish a general precedent and cannot be relied upon to waive statutory limitations. The Court emphasized that statutory authorities have the power to condone delays within specified limits, and resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution of India to waive such limitations would undermine the legislative intent. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate grounds for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially after missing opportunities in three successive forums. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, highlighting its lack of bona fides and ordered the connected miscellaneous petition to be closed without costs.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issues concerning the challenge to the Customs order, appeal timelines under the Customs Act, petitioner's pursuit of remedies through various forums, invocation of Article 226 for condonation of delay, and the dismissal of the Writ Petition due to lack of bona fides. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and the appropriate forums for seeking redressal, ultimately ruling against the petitioner's plea for relief.