TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 'Scaffolding Items' has already become final. 2. It is submitted that the present petitioner has claimed the duty drawback under Chapter Heading 7318, 8205, 3926 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as he is in the business of importing nuts, bolts, washer, hand tools, etc., that fall under 'scaffolding items'. He submitted that the goods were detained by the respondent authorities and ultimately they were released on a provisional basis. Thus, it is urged that since the issue with regard to the classification of the goods are already laid quietus, similar orders may be passed. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 03.04.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.3825 of 2023 and allied matters, against which the Special Leave Petition [SLP] (Civil) Diary No. 44987 of 2025 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 22.09.2025. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad clarifying the Chapter Headings 7308 and 7318 relating to the 'scaffolding items', which was challenged by filing Revision Application before the Principal Commissioner and by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules as under: "7.4 Apt would be to refer to Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, at this stage, which speaks of repayment of erroneous or excess payment of drawback and interest. "Rule 16. Repayment of erroneous or excess payment of drawback and interest. - Where an amount of drawback and interest, if any, has been paid erroneously or the amount so paid is in excess of what the claimant is entitled to, the claimant shall, on demand by a proper officer of Customs repay the amount so paid erroneously or in excess, as the case may be, and where the claimant fails to repay the amount it shall be recovered in the manner laid down in sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962." 7.5 It is quite clear from the said Rule that any amount of drawback and interest when paid erroneously or is paid in excess of the entitlement of the claimant, on demand by a proper officer of the Customs, the claimant is required to repay the amount paid erroneously or in excess. Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules provides for recovery of an amount of drawback and interest paid erroneously or in excess of what the claimant is entitled to, on dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h proceedings. It also had relied on the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 2007 (211) ELT 23 (Madras) which was against the assessee. 9.6 This Court taking note of various decisions had directed that the action of the rejection of refund claim cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and set aside. While parting, the Court in very strong words disapproved the arbitrary act on the part of the lower adjudicating authority and in ignoring the binding precedents. Apt would be to refer to those words: "[6.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and the decision of this Court in the case of NBM Industries (Supra), the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.4 rejecting the refund claims of the petitioner cannot be sustained and they deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside and the respondents - adjudicating authorities are hereby directed to sanction the respective refund claims of the claimant after following the law laid down by this Court in the case of NBM Industries (Supra) and pass fresh orders within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the present order and to make the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings and lessen the burden of the courts. Being a part of the justice delivery system. All efforts should be made by the authorities/quasi judicial authorities and judicial authorities to see that there is no multiplicity of proceedings and to pass the orders considering the binding decisions. It would also avoid unnecessary harassment to the parties as well as the unnecessary expenditure. [6.2] As observed hereinabove despite clear and unequivocal message by the pronouncement of the decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the message has not reached to the concerned authorities, we direct respondent No.2 - Central Board Excise and Customs, New Delhi to issue a detailed circular to all the adjudicating authorities considering the observations made by this Court in the present judgment and order as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions referred to in the present judgment and order, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the present order so that such eventuality may not happen again and again." 10. In the instant case, the grievance on the part of the petitioners is that the Order-in-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as on substantive issues. 13. The petitioner has approached this Court as the actions have been taken of issuance of the SCN in relation to the search made on 10.01.2015, the SCN has been issued on 09.02.2018. It is thus clear that for the export which had been made in the years 2011 to 2015 and for the shipping Bills of 01.01.2015 for which the duty drawback had been given to the petitioner in the year 2016, this action has been initiated before expiry of a period of three years so far as some bills are concerned. As held by this Court in case of PRATIBHA SYNTEX LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules though does not provide for the period of limitation, the reasonable period of limitation has to be read into the same and the SCN issued before expiry of a period of three years from the date of payment of the drawback to the petitioner cannot provide a reason for the Court to hold that the same as time barred. 14. The petitioners have shown the procedure for export of goods. It is a detailed procedure to urge that the petitioners have exported the goods following the procedure upon the export permitted by the proper officer and the fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arty having any issue on the classification would need to approach the appellate authority instead of reopening the assessment by issuing the show cause notice. The appeal appears to have become time barred as averred by the petitioners, the show cause notice is on account of the misclassification. 18. However, the Court needs to regard that the core issue raised in SCN is of classification which is concluded, and no challenge is made by the revenue. It has also questioned this after the export is already made and, even when the statutory provision permits the same, settled legal position would preclude such challenge when made beyond a specific time period. Additional reason is of the time stipulated for clearing the shipping bill which is of three days (3) and any late clearance also cannot furnish the reason to permit issuance of the SCN calculating from the date of payment of duty drawback. Even if, this angle is not dilated and left to the parties to argue before the concerned authority, at the best, for those bills where payment of duty drawback is within 3 years of the issuance of SCN, the adjudication can be permitted. This has not been at all considered in the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench of this Court by placing reliance on the other judgment, the case of M/s. SJS International vs. Union of India dated 09.12.2021 in Special Civil Application No. 20484 of 2019 has quashed and set aside the show cause notices. 6. The SLP (Civil) Diary No.44987 of 2025 filed by the Union of India challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 has been dismissed on 22.09.2025. 7. Another judgment dated 12.06.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.17255 of 2016 in the case of Gargip International v/s. Union of India & Ors., wherein, the Division Bench of this Court while examining the classifications of Chapter Heading 7318 and 8205 with regard to the 'scaffolding items', placing reliance on other judgments, has quashed and set aside the deficiency memo issued by the respondents and further directed to process the drawback claims of the petitioner and released the drawback amount with interest. Relevant observations are as under: "9. The petitioner has exported nuts by classifying them under chapter heading 73181600 and clamps by classifying them under chapter heading 82057000, therefore, specific description is provided ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch goods and challenge to show cause notice dated 12.01.2016, i.e. the same date of the impugned Notification in the present writ petition, has held thus: "5. The present petition was thus filed for quashing and setting aside a show cause notice dated 12.01.2016 issued by the Respondent no. 2 - the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The principal issue was regarding mis-declaration of the goods (nut, bolts, washers, hand tools etc.) and as to whether they would fall under Chapter Heading 7318, 8205, 3926 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under Chapter Heading 7308. One of the issues upon which the matter was admitted was regarding the power of the Respondent no. 2 (DRI) to issue the show cause notice by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Canon India Private Limited V/s. Commissioner of Customs in Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 2018 dated 09.03.2021. It was also recorded in the order dated 11.06.2021 admitting the matter that "the concerned respondent may proceed to adjudicate pursuant to the show cause notice issued in which proceedings the petitioner shall cooperate. However, concerned respondent may not pass final orders without l....