TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in-Original dated 31st January, 2025 (hereinafter "impugned order"), which arises out of the Show Cause Notice dated 14th January, 2021 (hereinafter "the SCN"). 3. The submissions raised by the Petitioner is twofold: i) Firstly, that the SCN had been issued after five years and is hence not maintainable; ii) Secondly, that the adjudication has been delayed for a period of five years. 4. Mr. Sarkar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the decision in W.P. (C) 4831/2021 titled M/s. VOS Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr., to argue that the delayed adjudication ought to result in the quashing of the SCN itself. 5. Mr. Naushad, ld. Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, on the oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on 06.10.2016. 25.05.2023 No One attended the Personal Hearing The Noticee vide letter dated 25.05.2023 has requested to provide relied upon documents. 20.09.2023 No One attended the Personal Hearing The authorized representative of the Noticee, advocate M/s Lex Malgan vide letter dated 20.09.2023 requested to provide copy of statement recorded on 06.10.2016. 21.10.2024 No One attended the Personal Hearing The authorized representative of the Noticee, advocate M/s Lex Malgan vide letter dated 23.10.2024 requested to provide copy of statement recorded on 06.10.2016. 08.11.2024 No One attended the Personal Hearing The Noticee neither attended the personal hearing nor submitted any reply. 17-12-2024 No One attended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hearing The Noucce neither attended the personal hearing nor submitted any reply 17.12.2024 No One attended the Personal Hearing The Noticee vide mail dated 17.12.2024 has requested to provide copy of statement recorded on 06.10 2016 13.01.2025 No One attended the Personal Hearing The Noticee neither attended the personal hearing nor submitted any reply M/s. Vinanath Enterprises 15.12.2022, 16.01.2023, 24.04.2023. 25.05.2023, 20.09.2023, 21.10.2024, 08.11.2024, 17.12.2024 No One attended the Personal Hearing The letter sent for Personal Hearing was returned back by postal authority. Shri Aashish Jalan. Proprietor of M/s. Vittanath Enterprises 15.12.2022. 16.01.2023. 24.04.2023. 25.05.2023. 20.09.2023. 21.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. A perusal of the above dates of hearings which were afforded to the Petitioner would show that beginning from 15th December, 2022 till 13th January, 2025, repeated hearings have been held by the Adjudicating Authority. On most of the occasions, the Petitioner did not appear before the Adjudicating Authority, however, repeated letters were sent seeking relied upon documents etc. Further, despite the number of hearings extended, the Petitioner did not choose to file the reply. Under these circumstances, delay cannot be attributed to the Department in this case. 8. Further, the Court in Rajbir Singh (supra) had considered the Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules and the argument of limitation as raised by the Petitioner. The Court had held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 10th March, 2025 in W.P.(C) 3012/2025 has, in fact, relegated the co-noticee to avail the statutory appellate remedy. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Commr. of Customs v. Sans Frontiers, (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7913) where a similar issue of limitation under Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules was raised, the Court had relegated the case on the ground that there was an alternate remedy that remained un-exhausted. "76. The other issue, which is raised by the firm, is that the initial SCN dated August 24, 2015, which held the firm ineligible for the drawback, was issued belatedly, and was thus time-barred. 77. The learned counsel for the firm contended that the drawback in the present case relates to the years 2008 to 2014, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be left remediless. 82. We, therefore, grant an opportunity to the firm to prefer a revision, under section 129DD of the Customs Act, against the order dated May 14, 2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 83. We direct that if such a revision is preferred within a period of two months, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and be entertained on merits by the Central Government. 84. It is open for the firm to raise all grounds, including the issue as to whether the SCN dated August 24, 2015 was barred by limitation. Needless to state that if so raised, the same shall be considered by the Central Government, and a speaking order shall be passed after affording an opportunity of being heard to the firm. ....