9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Authority against the said Order-in-Original and that he further filed a Revision before the Revisional Authority, aggrieved against the order passed in the Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal - It is not in dispute that the said revision is still pending before the Revisional Authority to consider the claim made by the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law. Thus, this Court, is not expressing any view on the merits of the matter. Removal of alert made in the Customs EDI system - duty drawback - respondent is refusing to lift the alert only on the reason that the petitioner is yet to pay interest - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the liability of the petitioner to pay the duty drawb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of finished leather to various countries. In the course of their business, they filed shipping bill Nos. 5128734 dated 25.04.2013 and 5128742 dated 25.04.2013 at Mumbai Air Customs and claimed duty drawback. The first respondent sanctioned drawback for a sum of ₹ 4,29,089/- in respect of the said shipping bills. The first respondent thereafter, issued a show cause notice dated 18.06.2016 to the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of ₹ 4,29,089/- should not be recovered from the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Customs Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback (Amendment) Rules, 2006 along with applicable interest on the ground that the petitioner has not realized sale proceeds of goods exported and no evidences w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Demand-cum-Show cause notice dated 18.06.2016 was received by the petitioner's Advocate on 26.04.2019. Aggrieved against the said Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2017, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone III. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 24.05.2019, as not maintainable, since it was not filed within 90 days from the date of Order-in-Original. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed a Revision Application before the Revision Authority, Mumbai and the same is pending for disposal. Meanwhile the petitioner filed a shipping bill No.5365663 dated 05.07.2019 with the second respondent. However, in view of the alert appeared in the Custom EDI System ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner did not produce the evidence to show that the sale proceeds (foreign exchange) in respect of the goods exported have been realized within the time limit prescribed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed penalty of ₹ 21,000/- on the petitioner under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. It is the specific case of the petitioner that neither the show cause notice nor the Order-in-Original was served on the petitioner before he got the same by way of application filed under Right to Information Act. 8. The above said claim made by the petitioner is not an issue to be considered in this case, as admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
