2026 (7) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 38,77,104 is sought to be recovered towards drawback availed by the petitioner and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 has been imposed on the petitioner. 2. The Petitioner states that he was the sole proprietor of M/s. Amrush Oversees, a firm engaged in export business and the export business was closed in the year 2011 due to poor business activities. The petitioner had exported certain goods for the period from 13.11.2008 to 19.02.2010 and had availed drawback for a sum of Rs. 38,77,104/-. During the circumstance, a show-cause notice dated 22.03.2017 was issued to the petitioner to show-cause as to why the amount paid as drawback for the exported goods along with the applicable interest shall not be recovered in terms of Rule 16(A)(2)(3)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itation prescribed, the impugned order passed by the respondents 1 & 2 cannot be said to be lacking statutory authority. She further submitted that the erroneous payment of drawback was noticed only in the year 2017 and immediately a show-clause notice was issued and after providing an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order was passed. 5. She further submitted that against the order passed under Rule 16 of the Amendment Rules 2006, an efficacious remedy of appeal is provided under Section 128(1) of Customs Act, therefore, this petition is filed without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal is not maintainable. In support of the submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajbir Singh Vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rat,) wherein it is held that three years period is the maximum period which can be considered as a reasonable one for recovery of any amount erroneously paid. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajbir Singh Supra. Wherein it is held that Rule No. 16 of the Drawback Rules does not prescribe any limitation, the Court is of the opinion that in the absence of a prescribed period of limitation being provided by the statute, the general limitation period of three years cannot be presumed to apply by default, especially when there are strong suspicious as to the fraudulent availment of duty drawbacks and knowledge of such availment is acquired much later. 11. It is a ....