9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck, sanctioned and paid to the respective exporters, in order-in-original no. 117/07/CAC/CC/KAP dated 20th September 2007 of Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai. 2. The primary contention of Learned Counsel for the appellant is that the demands raised in show cause notice of 24th August 2005 pertain to drawback that had been sanctioned as far back as 1995 to 1998 and, therefore, barred by limitation for which reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Pratibha Syntex Ltd v. Union of India [2013 (287) ELT 290 (Guj.)]. He submits that this delay is not justifiable under any circumstances as even the pretence of investigations as an impediment to initiation of proceedings is not manifest as no st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary 1995 and February 1998. With investigation eliciting the market value of these goods to be less than Rs.50 per piece which had been claimed and sanctioned as drawback, it was held by the adjudicating authority that prohibition under section 76 of Customs Ac, 1962 on payment in such circumstances warranted recovery under authority of rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 besides confiscation of the goods under section 113 of Customs Act, 1962 for overvaluation as well as imposition of penalties under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962. 4. According to Learned Authorised Representative, validity of recovery in the absence of bar of limitation in rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, 1962 which has been enacted to prohibit payment of drawback by proper officer in specific situations that have the effect of deriving undue advantage from a schedule of rates. 6. There is no doubt that rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 does not prescribe any limitation; indeed it should not have to as the empowerment of the sanctioning authority is limited to computation of eligibility from the scheduled rate. Though the time-limit has been held by the Tribunal to be non-existent in re Sun Exports, we find that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in re Pratibha Syntex Ltd has held that '26. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of this court, though Rule 16 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
