TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the demand for recovery of the drawback amount of Rs. 3,51,500/- in respect of seven shipping bills under Section 75(1) of the Customs Act, read with Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, along with applicable interest. 2. The petitioner states that he was engaged in the business of exporting shoes and had exported shoes under seven shipping bills during the period from 2005 to 2010. He further states that he closed his export business in the year 2011 due to poor business activity. In the year 2018, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the drawback amount paid in respect of the exported goods, along with applicable interest, should not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not prescribe any period of limitation for recovery of drawback erroneously paid. In the absence of any prescribed period of limitation, the impugned order cannot be said to be without statutory authority. He further submitted that the erroneous payment of drawback was noticed only in the year 2018 and that a show cause notice was immediately issued, followed by an opportunity of hearing, before the impugned order was passed. 5. He further submitted that an efficacious remedy of appeal is available against an order passed under Rule 16 of the Amendment Rules, 2006, under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act. Therefore, according to him, the present writ petition, having been filed without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No.18552 of 2022, relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Pratipa Sitex Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013 (287) E.L.T. 290 (Gujarat), wherein it was held that a period of three years is the maximum period that can be considered reasonable for recovery of any amount erroneously paid. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Rajbir Singh (supra). In that case, it was held that Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules does not prescribe any limitation and that, in the absence of a prescribed period of limitation, the general limitation period of three years cannot be presumed to apply by default, particularly where there are strong suspicions r....