Order(Oral)

Per : Arun Monga, J

1. The present writ petition has been filed, aggrieved by an order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, whereby the Order-in-Appeal dated 02.03.2020 passed in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the Order-in-Original dated 05.08.2019 was restored.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in export business, holding Import Export Code No. 1312012935, with its place of business at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. During the financial years 2011–2012 and 2012–2013, the petitioner effected export transactions, including two consignments under Shipping Bill Nos. 4266290 dated 04.03.2013 and 4187421 dated 27.02.2013, with FOB values of Rs. 11,31,900/- and Rs. 11,25,971/- respectively, on which duty drawback of Rs. 1,12,893/- was granted. The petitioner ceased its business operations in March 2017.

2.1 On account of non-submission of the Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) within the prescribed period, the respondent department issued a show cause notice and passed an ex parte order dated 22.02.2017 directing recovery of the drawback along with interest and penalty. Upon becoming aware of the said order, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,33,443/- on 15.03.2019. In the meantime, the petitioner had furnished the BRC through communications dated 12.03.2018 and 20.02.2019; however, the same reflected an incorrect date of realization, which remained unrectified despite follow-ups with the bank, necessitating the procurement of a Chartered Accountant’s certificate confirming timely realization of export proceeds.

2.2 The petitioner thereafter filed a refund application on 24.04.2019, which came to be rejected by order dated 24.07.2019 pursuant to a show cause notice dated 23.05.2019. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the appellate authority on 02.03.2020, setting aside the rejection and granting consequential relief, pursuant to which the refund was granted.

2.3 Pursuant to an RTI application, the bank furnished transaction advice confirming that the export proceeds had been realized on 28.03.2013 and 26.04.2013, within the prescribed period.

2.4 In the meanwhile, the respondent department challenged the appellate order by way of revision before the Central Government, which was allowed by order dated 31.03.2022, restoring the original adverse order.

2.5 Hence, the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 as wholly unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Drawback Rules, 1999, submitting that it deserves to be set aside as it defeats the very object of the duty drawback scheme, which is to ensure that export goods are not burdened with domestic duties. By rejecting the petitioner's refund application, the authority has effectively caused export of duty, thereby frustrating the legislative intent behind the scheme.

4. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents argue on the lines of the reply filed by them and seeks dismissal of the instant petition.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It transpires that the order dated 22.02.2017, which is the genesis of the present dispute, was never challenged by the petitioner. Not only that, pursuant thereto, the petitioner deposited the demand of Rs. 1,12,893/- along with interest of Rs. 1,10,550/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- vide TR-6 challan dated 15.03.2019.

7. It is only subsequent to the aforesaid deposit that the petitioner sought refund thereof in the year 2019, i.e., after more than two years from the order dated 22.02.2017, whereby the demand of duty drawback for a sum of Rs. 1,12,893/- had been confirmed.

8. At this stage, without entering into the controvers