TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court quashes 11-year-old Order-in-Original, denies refund due to limitation, upholds legal principles.</h1> <h3>Texel Industries Represented by its Proprietrix Valli Palaniappan Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Drawback - AIR), The Assistant Director</h3> Texel Industries Represented by its Proprietrix Valli Palaniappan Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Drawback - AIR), The Assistant Director - ... Issues:1. Consideration of quashing an Order-in-Original passed after a significant delay following a show cause notice.2. Interpretation of Section 75 and 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to recovery of duty drawback amount.3. Determining the applicability of a reasonable period for recovery in the absence of a prescribed limitation period under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Analysis of judicial precedents regarding exercising jurisdiction within a reasonable period in the absence of a statutory limitation.5. Evaluation of the petitioner's claim for refund based on a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court.6. Decision on quashing the show cause notice and Order-in-Original while denying the petitioner's claim for refund due to limitation.Issue 1:The High Court considered whether an Order-in-Original, issued under Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 after an 11-year delay following a show cause notice, can be quashed. The petitioner argued that the substantial delay in passing the order warranted quashing, citing a judgment involving a similar matter.Issue 2:The Order-in-Original required the petitioner to pay a specific sum under Section 75 and 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court analyzed the provisions to determine the legality of the demand for payment.Issue 3:The petitioner contended that although Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not specify a limitation period for recovering duty drawback amounts, such recovery must occur within a reasonable period. The court examined the concept of a reasonable period in the absence of a statutory limitation.Issue 4:Judicial precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, were referenced to establish that statutory authorities must act within a reasonable timeframe even without a prescribed limitation period. The court applied these precedents to assess the delay in passing the Order-in-Original.Issue 5:The petitioner sought a refund based on a Bombay High Court judgment, claiming payment under protest in a previous year. However, the court found no evidence of payment under protest and rejected the refund claim due to limitation, emphasizing consistency in legal arguments.Issue 6:Ultimately, the court quashed the show cause notice and Order-in-Original due to the unreasonable delay in issuance. However, the petitioner's claim for a refund of the amount paid earlier was denied on the grounds of limitation, aligning with the legal principles discussed in the judgment. The court clarified the decision and closed the case without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
