https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386202 A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable where the challenge went to jurisdictional defects, limitation, repeal, and absence of recovery machinery, and the availability of an alternate remedy did not bar review. A demand under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 could not be pursued after an unreasonable lapse of time; the Court applied the principle that stale fiscal recovery action must be taken within a reasonable period and treated notice beyond five years as impermissible. The repeal of the 1995 Rules and the saving provisions in the 2017 Rules did not preserve the impugned proceedings, and Rule 16 was found not to contain a complete adjudicatory mechanism for declaring drawback erroneous or excess. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386202 A writ petition under Article 226 was held maintainable where the challenge went to jurisdictional defects, limitation, repeal, and absence of recovery machinery, and the availability of an alternate remedy did not bar review. A demand under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 could not be pursued after an unreasonable lapse of time; the Court applied the principle that stale fiscal recovery action must be taken within a reasonable period and treated notice beyond five years as impermissible. The repeal of the 1995 Rules and the saving provisions in the 2017 Rules did not preserve the impugned proceedings, and Rule 16 was found not to contain a complete adjudicatory mechanism for declaring drawback erroneous or excess. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386202