https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311583 The Madras HC allowed petitions challenging duty drawback recovery notices issued under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The Court found that despite Rule 16 containing no specific time limitation provision, recovery notices issued after unreasonable delay cannot be sustained. Drawing analogy from Section 28 of the Customs Act which prescribes six months limitation for duty recovery, the Court held that notices issued beyond this reasonable timeframe must be rejected. The recovery process spanning from 1986-1990 was deemed excessively delayed, making the impugned orders liable to be set aside on limitation grounds. en-us Tue, 26 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jan 2024 05:33:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311583 The Madras HC allowed petitions challenging duty drawback recovery notices issued under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The Court found that despite Rule 16 containing no specific time limitation provision, recovery notices issued after unreasonable delay cannot be sustained. Drawing analogy from Section 28 of the Customs Act which prescribes six months limitation for duty recovery, the Court held that notices issued beyond this reasonable timeframe must be rejected. The recovery process spanning from 1986-1990 was deemed excessively delayed, making the impugned orders liable to be set aside on limitation grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311583