TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. RAY) 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Himanshi Patwa for Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra for the Petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas for the Respondent No. 2. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the Respondent No. 2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for the final hearing, as the issue involved is very short. 3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 and Show Cause Notice dated 27.01.2011, which has been upheld in the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner submitted the details of the export, on which the drawback was availed. 6.4 A Show Cause Notice dated 27.01.2011 was issued to the Petitioner, alleging that the details in the export in the Respondent's records did not match the details of export provided by the Petitioner. This notice also proposed that the exported goods were liable for confiscation under Section 113(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, and hence, the drawback duty of the Petitioner shall be disallowed, and penalty shall be imposed along with interest under Section 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act. 6.5 The Commissioner of Customs(adjudicating authority) vide impugned Order OIO No. KDL/ADC/RHM/41/2021-22 dated 31.03.2022, disallowed the drawback duty availed, amountin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. (Director of M/s. Dhultawala) 27.01.2011 31.03.2022 11 Years, 2 Months and 5 Days 6.8 In the Lead Matter, SCA No. 18262/2022 along with the allied matters, it is noteworthy that the adjudication of the Show Cause Notices was carried out after a lapse of more than eleven (11) years. 7. In the other group of matters, after the petitioners successfully appealed against the Order-in-Original, Revisions were filed by the Department and after a long gap of around eight years, the proceedings against the petitioners were revived by allowing the said Revisions by respective orders dated 8.3.2021 whereby, the orders in appeal were quashed and the Orders-in-Original were revived. A chart showing the revival of the lis, by way of Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rinciple of natural justice as well as practice and procedures of the quasi judicial fora, whose orders are challenged in these proceedings. Ms. Patwa, learned advocate relied upon the following decisions in support of her contentions :- 1. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2017 (352) ELT 455 (Guj)], 2. Shirish Harshavadan Shah v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai [(2010) 254 ELT 259(Bom)], 3. R.M. Malhotra v. Enforcement Directorate [(2009) 246 ELT 141 (Del)] 4. M/s. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise, Customs, Bhubaneswar and others [W.P. (C) 2845 of 2020 dated 24.06.2021], 8.1 She further submitted relying upon the decision of this C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of, R.M. Malhotra v. Enforcement Directorate (Supra), held that revival of the proceedings after a time gap of ten years, without notice of hearing disclosing any reason for the delay, is not merely a matter of impropriety; the respondents were under the duty to disclose what compulsions held up the adjudicatory process for so long. In absence of such explanation, the revival of the proceedings would be unlawful and arbitrary.; 10.4 The Hon'ble Orissa High Court, in the case of, M/s. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise, Customs, Bhubaneswar and others (Supra), held that revival of the proceedings after an inordinate delay is contrary to the concept of speedy disposal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... double benefit. This aspect of the entire issue of removal of the goods without issuing ARE-2 is missed out by the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority has placed reliance only on the non-issuance of the ARE-2 and the likelihood of the exporter getting double benefit of duty drawback in case when the percentage of the duty drawback also includes the Central Excise portion. We are of the opinion that the Revisional Authority while Considering the aspect in the facts of the case of the petitioner has not taken into consideration the fact that the rate of duty drawback is 1% in the facts of the case which relates to the custom portion only and not the Central Excise portion and therefore, the exporter did not get any double benef....