1985 (12) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of drawback claim based on declaration requirements under the Drawback Schedule.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Declaration Requirement for Drawback Claim
The case involved fourteen Revision Applications transferred to the Tribunal as appeals against the rejection of drawback claims by the Appellate Collector of Customs. The appellants, exporters of polyester sarees, purchased sarees from a manufacturer and claimed drawback on yarn, dye, and fiber content. The contention was that the declaration on shipping bills implied no rebate claim on fiber duty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Declaration on Shipping Bills
The appellants argued that the declaration on shipping bills sufficiently indicated no rebate claim on fiber duty, despite not explicitly stating so. The authorities rejected the claim citing lack of a specific declaration. The Tribunal analyzed the declaration's language and the Drawback Schedule's requirements for claiming drawback on fiber content.

Issue 3: Compliance with Drawback Schedule
The Tribunal noted that the exporters were entitled to drawback on fiber content if they declared no rebate claim on fiber duty. While the declaration on shipping bills did not precisely match the required declaration, it implied no rebate claim. The Tribunal emphasized substantial compliance with the law's requirements and criticized the authorities for a narrow interpretation.

Issue 4: Verification and Opportunity for Proof
The Tribunal highlighted that the Department could have verified the rebate claim independently but failed to do so. The rejection of drawback without proper verification or allowing the exporters to provide proof was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized the purpose of drawback to encourage exports and criticized the legalistic approach of the authorities.

Issue 5: Remand for Verification
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the previous orders, and remanded the matter for verification by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector was instructed to verify if any rebate on fiber duty had been claimed by the manufacturers or exporters. The declaration from the manufacturer stating no rebate claim was considered, and the Assistant Collector was directed to grant drawback if satisfied with the verification results.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment regarding the rejection of drawback claims based on declaration requirements under the Drawback Schedule.