TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Drawback Rules") whereunder, the Central Government is given power to fix rates at which drawback would be allowed to exporters of specified goods. Sub-Serial No. 54.04 of the Drawback Schedule covered goods of the description, "all fabrics including sarees, dhotis and odhanies made of man-made staple fibers and filament yarn". The goods exported by the petitioners are admittedly covered under SS No. 5404 of the Drawback Schedule and therefore, the petitioners were eligible for drawback thereunder. The rate of 20% of F.O.B. (Free on Board) value subject to a maximum of 62 per kg of filament yarn content was prescribed under the above schedule, subject to certain conditions. If those conditions were not satisfied by the exporter, then drawback at the rate of 17% of FOB value was allowed. 3. The petitioners exported various consignments of the goods falling under SH No. 5404 during the period from December 1995 to May 1996 under the claim of drawback. The petitioners filed claims for drawback for all such exports before the third respondent who was competent officer for verifying and sanctioning the claims of drawback for exporters of Surat. It is an undisputed fact that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e disposed of with a view to enable the petitioners therein to approach the revisional authority for reconsideration of the matter in accordance with law. The said applications at the relevant time were pending before the revisional authority. In the meanwhile, the stay applications filed by the petitioners came up for hearing whereupon, in the light of the fact that in other matters, the matters were pending before the revisional authority, the petitioners requested that the petitioners' appeal be kept in abeyance and in the meanwhile, the recovery be stayed. However, the second respondent passed Stay Order No. 18/2003 directing the petitioners to deposit the entire drawback amount confirmed under the Order-in-Original. The petitioners thereupon, on 24-4-2003, made an application for reconsideration of the stay order. By Miscellaneous Order No. 4/2003, the application came to be rejected. Thereafter, the appeal was fixed for hearing on merits on 10-9-2003. When the petitioners appeared before the second respondent for hearing of the appeal, second respondent inquired about the pre-deposit and on being informed that the amount of drawback was not deposited by the petitioners, by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the initial clarification on 20th September 1996, the instructions issued by the C.B.E. & C. were to the effect that the same should be applicable only to pending drawback claims. Subsequently, by the clarification issued vide letter dated 19th August 1999, C.B.E. & C. clarified that the earlier clarification of 20th September 1996 was operative from the date of issuance of the original notification and was not only prospective. It appears that it is only pursuant to the subsequent letter dated 19th August 1999, that the show cause notices have been issued in February 2000. Thus, though the Customs Authorities were well aware about the clarification in respect of the drawback paid on goods falling under condition (c) of the Note below sub-serial No. 5404 (1) of the Schedule, no action was taken at the relevant time to recover the drawback paid to the petitioner beyond the ceiling limit provided thereunder. It is only in February 2000, after a period of more than three years that by issuance of show cause notices, differential amount of drawback was sought to be recovered from the petitioners. The revisional authority in the earlier order dated 28th June, 2002 has held that the Dra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case. Whenever a question regarding the inordinate delay in issuance of notice of demand is raised. it would be open to the assessee to contend that it is bad on the ground of delay and it will be for the relevant officer to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case notice or demand for recovery was made within reasonable period. No hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard as the determination of the question will depend upon the facts of each case." 20. In Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. M/s. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held that any law or stipulation prescribing a period of limitation to do or not to do a thing after the expiry of period so stipulated has the consequence of creation and destruction of rights and, therefore, must be specifically enacted and prescribed therefor. It is not for the courts to import any specific period of limitation by implication, where there is really none, though courts may always hold when any such exercise of power had the effect of disturbing rights of a citize....