https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362798 Jurisdiction to initiate drawback recovery under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 was questioned on the ground that the notice was issued by an officer not shown to be the proper officer. The text notes conflicting precedent on the scope of officers empowered to act in drawback recovery matters, and that the relevant High Court judgment had been stayed by the Supreme Court, leaving the legal position unsettled. In that context, the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration after the governing issue is settled. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jul 2018 09:25:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362798 Jurisdiction to initiate drawback recovery under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 was questioned on the ground that the notice was issued by an officer not shown to be the proper officer. The text notes conflicting precedent on the scope of officers empowered to act in drawback recovery matters, and that the relevant High Court judgment had been stayed by the Supreme Court, leaving the legal position unsettled. In that context, the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration after the governing issue is settled. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362798