2025 (8) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....confirmed the demand for recovery of availed duty drawback from the petitioner, amounting to Rs. 74,57,154/- as against 211 shipping bills as detailed in the table as per Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 along with applicable interest under Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order-in-original on the following grounds : a) the impugned order-in-original has been passed arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice. The order-in-original is based on the show cause notice, dated 10.05.2018, which calls for documents dating back to the period from 2004 to 2014. According to the petitioner,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice from the respondents. According to him, the respondents have sent the personal hearing notices to the old address of the petitioner. According to him, in violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order-in-original has been passed against the petitioner. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the contentions of the petitioner. According to them, only on account of the non-fulfillment of the export obligations by the petitioner by not producing the Bank Realization Certificates(BRCs), the impugned order-in- original came to be passed against the petitioner. According to the respondents only by adhering to the principles of natural justice by affording personal hearing to the petitioner as reflect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order-in-original came to be passed. He would further submit that despite offering personal hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner did not chose to come forward to attend the personal hearing. 9. Admittedly, the duty drawback claim pertains to 211 shipping bills for the period from 2004 to 2014. Admittedly, the first show cause notice was issued by the respondents pertaining to the duty drawback claim for the period from 2004 to 2014 was issued only on 10.05.2018, i.e. after a lapse of several years. Admittedly, the show cause notice was issued by the respondents beyond the period of three years from the date of the respective shipping bills. The petitioner did not also participate in the impugned proceedings. The petitioner categorical....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Government of India vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals reported in 1989 (42) ELT 515 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any demand by any statutory authority will have to be made within a reasonable period. This Court therefore, held in M/s.L & T Construction Equipment Ltd., case that if the claim is made beyond the period of three years, the claim is unsustainable. However, in the counter filed by the respondents, the respondents have stated that several public notices were issued by the respondents and the petitioner was duly informed about the need for submission of Bank Realisation Certificates for the relevant period, public notices even if given will not suffice the purpose of recovering the availed duty drawb....