2024 (5) TMI 1488 - SCH - Customs

Jurisdiction of tribunal to entertain appeal related to duty drawback - Validity of Notice U/S 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - recovery of Duty Drawback erroneously sanctioned and paid to the Firm alongwith interest - As decided by HC 2023 (12) TMI 695 - DELHI HIGH COURT there is merit in the contention that the Revenue s appeal is grossly delayed. However, the principal controversy sought to be raised is regarding the jurisdiction of the learned CESTAT to entertain the Firm s appeal. Although, Revenue had not filed an appeal against the order dated 02.11.2018 within the stipulated time, the concerned authority has taken the steps for reviewing the consequential steps taken pursuant to the said order which is impugned in the said appeal. The issue whether the said order is valid is also sought to be raised in defence to the relief sought by the Firm in the present writ petition. In view of above, this Court considers it apposite to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 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 CESTAT, sanctioned refund of the Drawback, the Firm should not be left remediless - opportunity granted to the Firm to prefer a revision, under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, against the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) HELD THAT - Issue notice on the applications seeking condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition / Civil Appeal.

Summary

The Supreme Court issued an order to issue notice on applications seeking condonation of delay and on the Special Leave Petition/Civil Appeal. Respondent did not have representation. Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale presided over the case. Petitioner's counsel included Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Mr. Rajiv Jaipal, Ms. Priti Agarwal, Ms. Raminder Kaur, and Mr. Veerbhadra Singh.