TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., whereby this Court has disposed of Writ Petition (L) No. 3704 of 2024 filed by Petitioner No. 1 and Writ Petition (L) No. 3703 of 2024 filed by Petitioner No. 2 on the ground that it would be appropriate for the Petitioners to take recourse to the remedy of an Appeal as provided under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Against the Order dated 5th February 2024 passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 3704 of 2024, Petitioner No. 1 had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. By an Order dated 15th April 2024, the Supreme Court was pleased to dispose of the SLP by the following order:- "ORDER Shri Balbir Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that permission may be granted to the petitioner herein to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....articular act. Mr. Shroff relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District Co-Op. Milk Union Ltd. (217) ELT 325 (SC) in this regard wherein the Supreme Court observed that, if no limitation has been prescribed, the statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. 5. Further, Mr. Shroff submitted that it has been time and again held that even if no limitation is prescribed under Rule 16 of the Customs Central Excise Duties and Services Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 ("Drawback Rules"), a Show Cause Notice ought to be issued within a reasonable period. Such a reasonable period under the Drawback Rules has been held to be three years by the Gujarat High Court in the cases of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. Subir Kumar further submitted that the question of limitation raised is a mixed question of law and fact, which can be more appropriately raised in an Appeal. Therefore, the Order dated 5th February 2024, has correctly relegated the Petitioners to the remedy of an Appeal. 11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 12. It is well settled in law that a review can be entertained if a person discovers new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or on account of some error apparent on the fact of the record. 13. In the present case, it is not even the case of th....