2012 (8) TMI 894 - CGOVT - Customs

Denial of request of fixation of Brand Rate of Drawback - applicant had made the relevant exports by classifying the goods under category A of relevant entry Drawback schedule of All Industry Rate - Held that - it is noted that the applicant exporters had indeed filed their drawback claims under relevant All Industry Rate Drawback schedule entry of category A which on verification found was inadmissible because of Cenvat Credit facilities as discussed above. Now the applicant by terming the same as an inadvertent error and wants to change the same into a claim of fixation of Brand Rate of Basic Customs Duty. It is now noted that the lower authorities have objected to it in absence of any authorized legal amendment to the filed EDI system AIR-DBK Shipping Bills. Government also notes that neither the above amendment nor any specific relaxation thereof under Rule 17 of the above DBK Rules 1995 is on record before this authority. Rather for such subject matters for fixation of Brand Rate under Rule 7(1) of the Drawback Rules 1995 after exporter avails All Industry Rate Drawback under Rule 3 by virtue of his declaration on the shipping bill to avail AIR of drawback. When provisions are stipulated for doing a particular act in a specific manner then it would mean that any deviation therefrom is not permitted at all and it should be performed in that manner itself as per Rules. - sufficient cause of action stands completed on the basis of all the submitted documents by the applicant thus the same nowhere contravenes the principles of natural justice. The applicant has been heard by Commissioner (Appeals) and the submission made by him are duly considered. So there is no merits in his pleadings. Government finds itself in conformity with the views of Commissioner (Appeals) herein as there is no legal infirmity in the said order. - Decision in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE Delhi 2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA relied upon - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Revision applications challenging the rejection of brand rate of duty drawback claims.

Analysis:
The applicants filed revision applications against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting their duty drawback claims. The applicants sought fixation of brand rate of drawback under Rule 7(1) of the Duty Drawback Rules, 1995, for three separate claims. The Additional Commissioner restricted the claim amounts due to miscalculations and the applicants' classification under Duty Drawback Schedule entries suffixed with 'A', indicating non-availment of Cenvat Credit. However, it was found that the applicants were indeed availing Cenvat Credit, leading to the rejection of the claims.

The applicants contended that they were not issued show cause notices or granted personal hearings before the decisions were made, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. They argued that their exports should focus on goods and services, not duties and taxes, and claimed inadvertent errors in submitting Shipping Bills under scheme 'A'. They also emphasized that their brand rate application was solely for Basic Customs duty, not Central Excise duty or Service Tax.

The Government noted a delay in one case but proceeded to assess the rejection of claims based on the applicants' classification under 'A' category of the Drawback schedule. The applicants' request for amendment of Shipping Bills was highlighted, but the lower authorities rejected the claims due to the absence of authorized amendments. The Government referenced statutory provisions and clarified that the applicants' attempt to change their claims from All Industry Rate to brand rate without proper authorization was not permissible.

Considering the strict interpretation of statutes and legal precedents, the Government upheld the lower authorities' decisions, finding no contravention of natural justice principles. The Government concluded that the rejection of the duty drawback claims was justified, as the applicants' submissions were duly considered, and there was no legal infirmity in the orders. Consequently, all impugned orders-in-appeal were upheld, and the revision applications were rejected for lack of merit.