Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + CGOVT Customs - 2013 (8) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 233 - CGOVT - CustomsFixation of Brand rate of Duty Drawback - Whether Commissioner (Appeals) failed to examine the letter/order of the Additional Commissioner wherein the descriptive analysis of all the relevant documents having been thoroughly verified/scrutinized had been provided Held that:-Commissioner (Appeals) had therefore rightly allowed the fixation of duty drawback brand rate in the light of said C.B.E. & C. Circular subject to revenue safeguard as mentioned assesse was entitled to All Industry Rate Drawback @ 1.1% under Heading No. 8418 as stands admitted by the original authority - the option of fixation of brand rate available to assesse in terms of Circular cannot be denied - M/s. Suksha International v. UOI [1989 (1) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT ] had observed that interpretations of unduly restricting substantial export benefit which otherwise was due as per policy of Government should be avoided - For interpretation of the provisions of the Circular, Government was of view which was as per the observations of ITC Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that simple and plain readings should be adhered to and that provision in the statute as clarified by C.B.E. & C. Circulars were to be religiously followed. It appears that either full facts were not produced/available at the time before him or the respondent exporter was not interested in putting up the case in a legal and proper manner because neither the status of exports was on record nor the exporter appears to be willing to challenge this communication - It was very peculiar situation that department first denied drawback at AIR rate, then subsequently rejected the brand rate fixation application - C.B.E. & C. had categorically stated in the Circular that brand rate of drawback would also be admissible in such case Decided against revenue. Condonation of Delay - Government after due consideration of factual reasons of delay condones the same in exercise of power vested u/s 129DD - delay of 15 days happened due to filing appeal and thereafter realizing the mistake - the revision application had been filed - the delay involved was within the condonable limits of further 3 months.
|