Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + CGOVT Customs - 2014 (10) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 329 - CGOVT - CustomsDuty drawback claim - Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Import of second hand machines - Since these press machines could not be installed, the applicants withdrew the same from the EPCG Scheme and paid the applicable Customs Duty of ₹ 2,18,50,325/- and appropriate interest amounting to ₹ 61,62,413/-. On such uninstalled press machines, the applicants carried out various operations viz. refurbishing, painting, modifications, rewinding works, etc. and thereafter, the same were exported in CKD/SKD condition by classifying them under Customs Tariff Item 8462 29 10, under UT-1 Bond, under claim of Duty Drawback. - Their applications were rejected by the original authority. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned Order-in-Original Held that:- The applicant has contended that process carried out by them in the imported capital goods can be considered as input used in the manufacture of finished product i.e. reconditioned machine. As observed in para above, the provisions of Section 75 unambiguously state that drawback under Section 75 is available only on imported materials used in manufacture of final product. In this case the impugned goods were capital goods i.e. imported second hand machinery on which some operations were claimed to be carried out. Whereas the applicant had no Central Excise Registration for manufacture of such machines. No imported materials were used in processing of impugned goods so as to make the impugned goods eligible for drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. The export of imported machines by carrying out mere reconditioning/refurbishing operation without complying with substantial requirements of said Section 75, renders the said drawback claims inadmissible under Section 75. There is specific provision of claiming drawback on re-exported goods under Section 74 which applicant has failed to avail. Applicant has heavily relied upon Circular No. 57/95-Cus., dated 30-5-1995, wherein the scope of Section 75 has been enlarged to include admissibility even for goods processed or on which any operation has been carried out in India, in view of the definition of manufacture. Government observes that any such enlargement of scope of Section 75 has to be seen in light of basic provision of Section 75. In this case the repaired/refurbished capital goods were exported and no imported materials are used in the manufacture/processing of exported goods. Since the instant claims do not fall in the ambit of Section 75 of Customs Act, 1962, the provisions of said circular are not applicable to this case. instant drawback claims are not covered by the provisions of Section 75 of Customs Act, 1962 and lower authorities have rightly rejected the said duty drawback brand rate fixation applications. Government finds no infirmity in the impugned orders and therefore uphold the same - Decided against appellant assessee.
|