https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89328 HC held that the respondent's rejection of duty drawback claims was procedurally flawed. The order violated principles of natural justice by failing to issue a deficiency memo as mandated under Rule 13(3)(a) of Customs Central Excise Duty and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The 2018 Public Notice could not retrospectively validate the improper rejection of 2015 claims. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, ensuring the petitioner receives a reasoned, merit-based evaluation of their duty drawback claims in accordance with applicable legal provisions. en-us Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:34 +0530 Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89328 HC held that the respondent's rejection of duty drawback claims was procedurally flawed. The order violated principles of natural justice by failing to issue a deficiency memo as mandated under Rule 13(3)(a) of Customs Central Excise Duty and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The 2018 Public Notice could not retrospectively validate the improper rejection of 2015 claims. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, ensuring the petitioner receives a reasoned, merit-based evaluation of their duty drawback claims in accordance with applicable legal provisions. Highlights Customs Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:34 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89328