9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under Article 226 for quashing orders passed by Customs authorities and seeking refund of excise duty drawback. Analysis: The petitioner, a company manufacturing automobile and other tires, exported 371 tires in 1966 and applied for a drawback of Rs. 54,308.50. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the application as "unsubstantiated." The petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected on the ground of a delay in filing. Subsequent revision applications were also dismissed on the same ground. The petitioner then filed a petition challenging the rejection of the drawback application. The High Court found that the rejection order was based on a fundamental error. The order incorrectly referred to medicine instead of tires, indicating a lack of application of mind by the Assistant Collector. The Court held that the rejection was manifestly invalid and unjust due to the clear discrepancy in the application and the order's reasoning. The respondent argued on the grounds of limitation and laches, citing delays in filing the appeal and the petition. However, the Court noted that no prejudice was caused to the respondents by the delay. The Court emphasized that a manifestly erroneous order causing no prejudice should not be upheld based on laches alone. The Court referred to precedents emphasizing that delay, without prejudice, should not bar the consideration of a petition. The Court allowed the petition, directing the refund of Rs. 45,197.70 to the petitioner within 8 weeks. The Court set aside the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities, noting that those decisions were based on the now-invalid rejection order. The Court highlighted the need to rectify the patently illegal and unsustainable rejection order by granting the appropriate refund to the petitioner.
|
