2026 (8) TMI 1759

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture and export of garments. During the period from 08.01.2004 to 28.11.2007, the petitioner exported garments under 1583 shipping bills and availed drawback amounting to Rs. 4,99,69,796/-. 3. In the year 2018, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice under Rule 16A(2) and (3) of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The petitioner contends that the show cause notice was not served on it. It is stated that the petitioner had closed its business in the year 2019. The 2nd respondent, however, held that the show cause notice had been duly served and that the petitioner had not submitted any reply. The proceedings were thereafter adjudi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submitted that the erroneous payment of drawback was noticed only in the year 2018 and that a show cause notice was immediately issued. According to him, an opportunity of hearing was also provided, which the petitioner did not avail. 6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel further submitted that an appeal is provided against an order passed under Rule 16 of the Amendment Rules under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition without availing the statutory remedy of appeal. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Rajbir Singh v. Union of India and others, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2847. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry period of limitation, a general period of three years cannot automatically be applied, particularly where there are strong suspicions of fraudulent availment of drawback and such availment comes to the notice of the authorities at a later point of time. 12. It is a settled principle of law that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and that a person cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own fraud, irrespective of the passage of time. 13. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner fraudulently obtained the drawback or suppressed any material facts. The only allegation is that the petitioner had not produced proof of realisation of the export proceeds. Therefore, the decision of the Delhi High Court in Rajbir Sin....