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 353 - CGOVT - CustomsCondonation of Delay - Held that:- There were sufficient cause for condonation of the delay - their excise consultant had met with a severe accident and there consultant was not well therefore they could not draft revision applications in time - One medical certificate was also submitted. Fixation of Brand rate of drawback - Revenue rejected the application for fixation of brand rate of drawback under Rule 6 on the ground that export value was less than the value of imported materials – Held that:- The requirement of Rules/ Circulars as substantial requirement of law and cannot be considered as minor technical lapse – The entire case matters should be considered and proceeded as per the statutory provisions of relevant rules/circulars and on the basis of all the legal documents which stands finalized as per the prescribed procedure – following M/s. Paper Products Ltd. v. CC [1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - The plain reading of statute as clarified and elaborated vide the C.B.E. & C. Manual and circulars were mandatorily binding on the departmental authorities – and INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. Versus THANE MUNICIPAL [1991 (9) TMI 162 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - when provisions were stipulated for doing a particular act in a specific manner then it would mean that any deviation therefrom was not permitted at all and it should be performed in that manner itself as per Rules. Purpose of Rule 8(2) of Drawback Rules - Rule 8(2) provides the formula to ascertain value addition as provided under Board Circular No. 14/2003-Cus - the value as per Bill of Entry and Shipping Bill were to be necessarily taken into consideration - Any subsequent negotiations or re-settlement of prices to be paid specifically when the assesse had paid the duties at the time of imports through DFCE licence cannot override the statutory provisions - The orders-in-appeal were therefore upheld for being perfectly legal and proper– Revision application Rejected – Decided against assesse.
|