New Sun Innovaation Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that recovery of availed duty drawback beyond period of three years from the date of respective shipment is barred by limitation. Accordingly, it is directed to reconsider the matter after affording personal hearing as order was passed in violation of natural justice.
Facts- This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order-in-original, dated 16.12.2023. Under the impugned order-in-original, the 1st respondent has 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 u/s. 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Conclusion- In M/s. L & T Construction Equipment Ltd.’s case, this Court has agreed with a view taken by the Gujarat High Court pertaining to a duty drawback claim and has held that three years period is the maximum period, which can be considered as a reasonable one for recovery of any amount erroneously paid.
Held that the impugned order-in-original has to be quashed and reconsidered by the respondents after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner as the petitioner has not received the personal hearing notices said to have been sent by the respondents prior to the passing of the impugned order-in-original; the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to submit his explanation as to why they are not liable to refund the availed duty drawback claim and the petitioner categorically contends that the duty drawback claim is barred by limitation in view of the inordinate delay in sending the show cause notice pertaining to the exports made by the petitioner for the year from 2004 to 2014.
