9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is maintainable in view of involvement of pure questions of law as well jurisdiction and law enunciated by Hon ble Supreme Court and followed by this court time and again. While taking cue from Sections 28, 28AAA 75 of 1962 Act and relying upon judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise versus Larsen and Toubro [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT ] as well this court in the case of Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Others [ 2016 (8) TMI 1460 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] we have held that mechanism is absent in Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 thus demand under Rule 16 of Drawback Rules, 1995 is not sustainable. Petition allowed. - JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH AND JUSTICE LALIT BATRA For The Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf assessment which was introduced by Finance Act, 2011 w.e.f 8.4.2011. The Custom Officers permitted export of goods in terms of Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. As conceded by both parties, no separate assessment order was passed and drawback was released after export of goods. 3 . The Petitioner realized export proceeds, however Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation against the Petitioner alleging that Petitioner is fraudulently availing duty drawback by grossly overvaluing the goods in the export documents. The DRI searched various premises of the Petitioner on 25.4.2015 and concluded that Petitioner had mis-declared value of goods which were exported upto March 2015. On the basis of investigation cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tainable in view of involvement of pure questions of law as well jurisdiction and law enunciated by Hon ble Supreme Court and followed by this court time and again. Relying upon judgment of this court in the case of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Vs State of Haryana 2005 (28) RCR (Civil) 352 as upheld by Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (2017) 9 SCC 463, we have held that in view of Rule 20(2) of Drawback Rules, 2017 saving few rights/action accrued under Drawback Rules, 1995 show cause notice issued after 1.10.2017 invoking Rule 16 of Drawback Rules, 1995 is not sustainable. While taking cue from Sections 28, 28AAA 75 of 1962 Act and relying upon judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
