2019 (12) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ups were exported to various countries. Drawback of central excise duty was claimed in terms of serial number 63.06 of the drawback schedule at the rate of 7% advalorem. 3. On 16.06.2000 there appears to have been a Public Notice bearing No.180/2000 drawing attention to Board Circular No.37/2000(CUS) dated 08.05.2000 announcing the observance of 'Drawback Arrears Clearance Month' and extending the clearance period upto 30.06.2000. The public notice stated that pending drawback claims that were unanswered would be scrutinised and the queries/defects therein shall be exhibited by 10.00 a.m. on the very next day when the notice was made public. All exporters were requested to respond to the queries within 10 days. It was stated that if no r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner filed supplementary claims for drawback. Admittedly, there is no authority in law in terms of which the said claims have been made. Not content with filing the aforesaid claims, W.P.No.16319 of 2011 was also filed seeking a mandamus directing R1 to dispose the supplementary claims. This Writ Petition was ordered on 19.08.2011 directing R1 to consider and pass orders on the supplementary claims on merits and in accordance with law. R1 passed an order thereafter on 28.11.2011 rejecting the supplementary drawback claims and this order travelled in appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The first appellate authority, vide order dated 29.11.2012, rejected the claims in respect of 12 shipping bills and directed R1 to sanction t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat ostensibly arise in its drawback claims. Had this Rule been complied with, the petitioner might well have rectified the defects, thus paving the way for a timely disposal of its drawback claims. The flaw has occasioned at the door of the Department by the violation of principles of natural justice, specifically Rule 13(3) of the Rules. 8. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Balaji Impex V. Union of India (2012 (279) ELT 485) where, in the context of a similar Public Notice, the Bench has said that 'merely because there was a special drive to clear a backlog of matters, that would afford no justification for the department not to comply with the fundamental principles of natura....