The doctrine of functus officio limits a quasi-judicial authority's ability to revisit final decisions, ensuring stability and judicial discipline in legal adjudications.

JUDGMENT :

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

1. Craving to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against Order-in-Appeal No. 220-221/CUS/CCP/2025, dated 30.09.2025 (issued on 08.10.2025) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”) setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 24.01.2024 of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs Division, Bhubaneswar, giving effect to Order-in-Appeal No. 100-101/CUS/CCP/2023, dated 29.09.2023 (issued on 30.09.2023) of the Principal Commissioner (Appeals) (In- Situ), Bhubaneswar (“Appellate Order” for convenience), the writ petition is filed for grant of following relief(s):

“Under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner, humbly prays:

a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records and proceedings pertaining to the impugned Order dated 08.10.2025 under Annexure-1 and after going into the validity and legality thereof, to quash and set aside the same;

b) that this Hon'ble Court may kindly graciously be pleased to restore the Appeal No.123/CUS/CCP/2023 filed on 21.03.2024 by the petitioner;

c) for costs of this petition;

d) for such and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

And/or any other order/orders as the Court may deem fit in the interest of justice;

And/or for this act of kindness the petitioner in duty bound shall ever pray.”

Factual matrix:

2. The petitioner, a public limited company, having units in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) as well as the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), utilized portion of electricity generated in the unit located in the DTA for use as input for the purpose of manufacturing aluminium products. Therefore, all industry rate of duty drawback for electricity so used in the unit located in SEZ was claimed to be NIL with reference to Section 2 (m) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 read with Rule 23 and Rule 24 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 and relevant provisions of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995. Accordingly, an application was made under Rule 6 of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 before the Competent Authority on 18.05.2017 seeking fixation of brand rate of drawback pertaining to the period April, 2017 to March 2018.

2.1. The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar fixed the brand rate of duty drawback at 15.61% of the free on board vide Brand Rate Fixation Order No. 2 of 2019, dated 18.04.2019 read with corrigendum dated 07.08.2019 with respect to exports made during the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. The application dated 07.11.2019 filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner claiming duty drawback to the tune of Rs.165,07,76,478/- in respect of export transactions under nine Bills of Export stood rejected by Order-in-Original dated 04.06.2020; thereby, the claim of the petitioner with respect to duty drawback was disallowed. An appeal preferred under Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962, came to be disposed of vide Order-in-Appeal No. 100-101/CUS/CCP/2023, dated 29.09.2023 issued on 30.09.2023 by the Principal Commissioner (Appeals) (In-Situ), Bhubaneswar (“Appellate Authority” for brevity) whereby the claim of the petitioner was partially allowed. The Appellate Authority found four Bills of Export dated 01.07.2017, 31.07.2017, 04.09.2017 and 29.09.2017 out of nine Bills of Export, being assessed prior to 01.07.2017, to be eligible for duty drawback at