TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceeding has been challenged on the premise that the impugned order of adjudication has been made almost after 8 years from the date of shipping bill. As a matter of fact, all these shipping bills relates to the period of 2004-09 in respect of which rebate / drawback was granted which was sought to be recovered on the premise that the petitioner had not furnished documentary evidence to indicate that the sale proceeds in respect of export has been realized vide show cause notice dated 17.08.2010, to which, reply was filed by the petitioner on 14.09.2010 enclosing evidence in the form of Chartered Accountant Certificate revealing that the petitioner had realized the sale proceeds in respect of the subject exports. After a hiatus of more than ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... levied or not paid in view of collusion or suppression of fact, the limitation prescribed is 5 years from the relevant date. 4. To the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondent that in the absence of the time limit being prescribed one cannot read any limitation into the said provision. 5. To a pointed question as to whether the Chartered Accountant Certificate would constitute a valid basis for discharging burden of realization of sale proceeds in respect of the export. It was submitted by learned counsel for both parties that Circular No.5 of 2009 provides that Chartered Accountant Certificate is one of the modes for proving compliance with the requirement for claiming the benefit of rebate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has to initiate the proceeding within a reasonable time. Any unreasonable delay in exercise may affect its validity. What is a reasonable time, however, will depend upon the facts of each case." ii. J.M. Baxi & CO v. UOI - 2016 (336) ELT 285 (Mad): "17. .. Though the statute does not prescribe a period of limitation for passing an order of adjudication, the law is well settled that anything in respect of which no period of limitation is prescribed, should be done at least within a reasonable time. What is reasonable time, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case...." iii. Santosh- kumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale, 2009 (9) SCC 352: "Thus, we can safely say that the law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh no limitation has been prescribed, the proceedings having been initiated after reasonable period is unsustainable, it was held as under: "7. It is no doubt true that Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995, does not prescribe a period for claiming refund of erroneous excise payment of drawback. But it does not mean that in the absence of any time prescribed, such a refund can be claimed according to the respondents own whims and fancies. It is a well settled proposition laid down in various decisions, that in circumstances where the statute does not prescribe time limitation, such an exercise should be completed within a reasonable period. The stand of the respondents in the revision is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitions and set aside the orders impugned therein. It is an accepted position that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the above referred decision of this Court wherein it has been held thus : 16. In the light of the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, the sole question that arises for consideration in this group of petitions is as to whether the concept of reasonable period is required to be read into rule 16 of the Drawback Rules which does not prescribed any period of limitation for recovery of drawback erroneously paid. 17. As noticed earlier, the drawback claims in all these petitions relate to the period between December 1995 to 1996, in relation to which, show cause notices came ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 Drawback Rules do not provide for any time limit and as such there is no time limit for issue of demand notice for recovery of drawback paid erroneously or in excess under rule 16 of the Rules. 18. rule 16 of the Drawback Rules provides that where an amount of drawback a/id interest, if any, has been p....