9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to the petitioner pointing out to it the defects that ostensibly arise in its drawback claims - Had this Rule been complied with, the petitioner might well have rectified the defects, thus paving the way for a timely disposal of its drawback claims. The flaw has occasioned at the door of the Department by the violation of principles of natural justice, specifically Rule 13(3) of the Rules. The rejection of representation dated 05.11.2004 on the ground that all drawback claims were brought to nil is flawed - the petitioner should not be denied the benefit of drawback based merely on a Public Notice, particularly when the petitioner has satisfied all other requirements under the relevant Notification/Scheme, thus frustrating the object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espond to the queries within 10 days. It was stated that if no responses were received resolving the raised queries, the claims would be disposed on merits. Admittedly, the petitioner did not respond to the same. 4. On 28.10.2004, the petitioner made a representation to the Grievance Committee for sanctioning the drawback claim. On 05.11.2004, a letter was received from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (EDI-Drawback)/R1 stating that the drawback claims had been reduced to zero and disposed. Between 13.12.2004 and 15.10.2005 the petitioner filed representations before the authorities at various levels within the Customs Department requesting sanction of the drawback claims. Since there was no action forthcoming, W.P.No.1501 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.2012, rejected the claims in respect of 12 shipping bills and directed R1 to sanction the drawback with regard to the remaining 23 claims. The reasoning was that the supplementary claims had been time barred, since the claims, dated 02.03.2010 related to transactions of the period 1999-2001. Cross appeals came to be filed before the second respondent/Government of India, which came to be dismissed on 18.10.2013. It is only the petitioner/assessee who has chosen to challenge the order passed by the Government by way of the present Writ Petition. 6. In this case, it under the public notice dated 16.06.2000 that the Commissioner of Customs takes up all pending drawback claims for clearance. Whether the processing of drawback ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acklog of matters, that would afford no justification for the department not to comply with the fundamental principles of natural justice. Efficiency in the disposal of the quasi judicial proceedings is important but, that cannot be at the cost of overriding fundamental principles known to the law of the land . Though these observations have been made in the context of a special initiative by the Customs Department for finalisation of provisional assessments of certain specified bills of entry, the observations are equally relevant in the present case, if not more so. This is for the reason that an assessee who has made a claim for drawback should be put to notice if there are defects in the claim. Not doing so would frustrate the spirit, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
