Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court quashes late show cause notice, rules against incomplete mechanism for drawback demand.</h1> <h3>M/s Famina Knit Fabs through its partner Versus Union of India And Ors.</h3> M/s Famina Knit Fabs through its partner Versus Union of India And Ors. - [2020] 11 G S.T.R. - OL 383 (P&H), 2020 (371) E.L.T. 97 (P & H) Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 against the show cause notice.2. Reasonable period of limitation for issuing show cause notice under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995.3. Effect of the repeal of Drawback Rules, 1995 and introduction of Drawback Rules, 2017 on the show cause notice.4. Adequacy of the mechanism under Rule 16 of Drawback Rules, 1995 for determining and recovering erroneous or excess drawback.5. Authority of the Respondent to reassess the value of already exported goods under Rule 6 & 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Writ Petition:The court acknowledged that the primary issue involved was the demand of Duty Drawback, an export incentive. The petitioner raised questions of limitation, repeal of Drawback Rules, 1995, absence of a mechanism to raise demand of drawback, and the jurisdiction of the Respondent to reassess the value of goods already exported. The court noted that the dates of export, release of drawback, realization of export proceeds, and the issue of the show cause notice were undisputed. It was held that the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962 could not decide what constituted a reasonable period of limitation, which is a matter for the courts. The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhatinda District Coop. Milk and other precedents, concluding that the writ petition was maintainable as it involved questions of jurisdiction.2. Reasonable Period of Limitation:The court discussed various judgments including those of the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court, which held that in the absence of a specific period, actions should be initiated within a reasonable period. The court noted that Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes a maximum period of 5 years to issue a show cause notice even in cases of fraud or willful mis-statement. The court concluded that a notice issued beyond 5 years from the date of export is barred by limitation and bad in the eyes of law. The impugned show cause notice was issued after more than 5 years from the date of export, making it time-barred.3. Effect of Repeal of Drawback Rules, 1995:The court examined Section 159A of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 20 of the Drawback Rules, 2017, which repealed the Drawback Rules, 1995. It was noted that Rule 20(2) of the Drawback Rules, 2017 only saved specific rights and liabilities under the 1995 Rules, such as pending applications for determination or revision of drawback and pending claims for payment of drawback. The court held that the show cause notice issued under the repealed 1995 Rules was not saved by the 2017 Rules, and thus, the proceedings initiated under the repealed rules were not maintainable.4. Adequacy of Mechanism under Rule 16 of Drawback Rules, 1995:The court found that Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 did not provide a complete mechanism for determining and demanding erroneous or excess drawback. The rule only directed the claimant to repay the erroneous or excess drawback on demand by a proper officer but did not prescribe a method or procedure for determining such erroneous or excess amounts. The court held that in the absence of a prescribed mechanism, the demand under Rule 16 was not sustainable. The court also noted that the Valuation Rules, 2007, which were cited by the Respondents, did not substitute for the necessary mechanism under Rule 16.5. Authority to Reassess Value of Already Exported Goods:The court examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Valuation Rules, 2007. It was found that the Valuation Rules applied to 'export goods,' which are defined as goods to be taken out of India, not goods that have already been exported. The court held that the Customs Officers or DRI officers did not have the authority to reassess the value of goods that had already been exported, as there was no specific provision in the Customs Act, 1962, like those in the Income Tax Act or VAT Acts, empowering such reassessment.Conclusion:The court allowed the petition, quashing the show cause notice dated 09.02.2018, as it was issued beyond the reasonable period of limitation, was not saved by the 2017 Rules, and was based on a rule that did not provide a complete mechanism for demanding erroneous or excess drawback. The court refrained from addressing the last question regarding the power to reassess already exported goods, as the petition was resolved on the other grounds.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found