TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior permission to get exported the material manufactured in a 100% export oriented unit on job work basis, but with or without such permission for the more important reason of the notification itself being not applicable to the petitioner - The revisional authority having bestowed its attention on facts and also having applied the relevant law which held the field at the relevant time – No need or justification for interfering with impugned order passed by revisional authority - these writ petitions are rejected - 5905 and 6482 of 2009 (T-TAR), - - - Dated:- 17-3-2009 - D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. Shri N. Nagaraju, Advocate, for Ennar Associates, Advocates, for the Petitioner. [Order]. - Writ petitioners are two in number. The fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived erroneously. The same is to be repaid in terms of Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 1995 with interest @ 24% from 12-3-2000 upto the date of payment. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs only) on M/s. L.T. Karle Unit III under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs only) on M/s. L.T. Karle, 100% EOU, under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) on Shri M.M. Varma, General Manager Shipping Commercial of Karle Group of Companies under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 129DD of the Act. This submission proceeds on the premise that the scope of a revision petition in terms of Section 129DD is only when the Commissioner of Customs may, if he is of the opinion that an order passed by the Commissioner Appeals under Section 128 is not legal or proper, direct the appropriate officer to make an application on his behalf before the Central Government on such order. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner did not suffer from either of these two infirmities and therefore, the revision was not tenable. It is further submitted that the view taken by the revisional authority to hold that petitioners together could not have availed both the concession available to a 100 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority indicates that the revisional authority has bestowed its attention to all aspects of the matter. The regional authority has clearly given reasons as to why the Appellate Commissioner was wrong to following the view of the CESTAT rendered in the case of M/s. Leela Scottish Lace Ltd. and particularly by indicating that during the relevant period i.e., the year 1998-1999 the definition of manufacturer under the Central Excise Act and Rules was different and it did not include a job worker etc. 9. It is also indicated that till 30-6-2001 the ruling of the Supreme Court to the effect that the job worker who actually undertakes the actual manufacturing activity is the manufacturer and not the customer who supplies the material or gets t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice and during the personal hearing that the department's case was that the drawback is to be denied Because prior permission for job work by the EOU for the DRA was not obtained. It is also mentioned in the reply to the show cause notice that the department's case was that once the permission for job work is sanctioned, automatically the DTA will qualify for relief under the drawback scheme in respect of 'goods' got manufactured and exported through an EOU. Board's Circular No. 487/53/99-CX., dated 30-9-99 clarifying that rebate should be allowed even if there are procedural deviations subject to fulfillment of other conditions has been relied upon. I would like to therefore specifically clarify that the department's case is not tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with the Board's Circular mentioned above holds no water. Significantly, Board's Circulars No. 31/2000, dated 20-4-2000 issued from file F. No. 609/41/2000 DBK has further clarified that such experts will be entitled only to Brand Rate of duty drawback. having been on facts found correct and affirmed by the revisional authority in terms of the order dated 5-12-2008 [copy at Annexure-E to the writ petition], while the reliance placed on the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, does not advance the case of the petitioners, in the present situation, it is also found there is absolutely no need or justification for interfering with the impugned order passed by the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
