TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Revision Application Upheld for Drawback Payment Claim Exceeding Time Limitation</h1> The Revision Application by M/s. Surana Textile Mills Ltd. regarding the rejection of their supplementary claim for drawback payment filed after 5 years ... Drawback - Limitation Issues:Claim for supplementary drawback payment filed after 5 years - Rejection based on limitation under Rule 15(1) of Duties Drawback Rules - Application for condonation of delay - Applicability of Section 154 of Customs Act for correcting clerical errors - Interpretation of relevant case laws.Analysis:The case involved a Revision Application by M/s. Surana Textile Mills Ltd. against the rejection of their supplementary claim for drawback payment filed after 5 years. The original claim was settled, but the applicant alleged receiving a partial payment and requested the balance amount. The claim was rejected on the grounds of limitation under Rule 15(1) of the Duties Drawback Rules. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on the delay exceeding the permissible period of one year.During the hearing, the applicant's counsel argued that the claim should be treated as filed under Section 154 of the Customs Act to correct clerical errors, citing relevant case laws. The counsel referred to a judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and subsequent confirmation by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply to corrections made under Section 154. Additionally, judgments by CEGAT benches were presented to support the argument that Section 154 is independent of Section 27, allowing relief to be granted without a time limit.The Government considered the submissions and acknowledged that while the cited case laws did not directly relate to drawback cases, their principles were relevant. The Government noted the possibility of a clerical error leading to the short sanction of the amount and highlighted the Customs House's responsibility to inform claimants of such discrepancies. Consequently, the Government remanded the case to the original authority to determine if the shortfall was due to a clerical error and instructed rectification under Section 154 of the Customs Act if necessary. The decision was made in the interest of justice and fair play, emphasizing the importance of addressing errors promptly and ensuring claimants are informed of any discrepancies.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of limitation in filing supplementary claims for drawback payments, the applicability of Section 154 of the Customs Act for correcting errors, and the responsibility of Customs authorities to communicate discrepancies to claimants. The decision highlighted the need for procedural fairness and timely resolution of errors to uphold the integrity of customs processes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
