Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
← Previous Next →
  • Contents
  • Cases Cited


User Login
Stay sign in     

Forget password        New User/ Regiser


2016 (7) TMI 467

Head Note:
Refund of duty drawback claim repaid earlier - Proper format - Earlier, recovery proceedings were initiated for duty drawback sanctioned earlier since respondent / exporter had failed to produce the proof of realization of export proceeds - the respondent repaid the said ineligible drawback along with interest and the penalty amount on 31.01.2013. Meanwhile they received the requisite certificate evidencing realization of export proceeds. Since the certificates demonstrated that the export realization had been received within a period of one year from the relevant date, they filed a refund claim dated 09.02.2013 and the same was rejected by the lower authority as not in proper format. - The main issue for decision is whether refund claim under Rule 16A (4) is admissible or not.

Held that:- In the present case, the foreign remittance is claimed to have realized by the respondent first and the amount was repaid by them later. Moreover, no proof of realization of export proceeds was furnished by them within the stipulated period of three months. The enabling statutory provision viz. Rule 16A (4) for refund of drawback recovered will undisputedly be subject to provisions of the said Rule. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly erred in holding the refund as admissible once the that Bank Realization certificates were produced by the exporter within a period of one year from the date of recovery of drawback.

Government finds merit in the observation of the original authority that the Order No. 457/2012 dated 15.05.2012 for recovery of drawback amount had become final as it had been accepted by the applicant who did not challenge it any appellate forum and paid the confirmed dues. Therefore, Government holds that question of any refund of duty paid pursuant to such an order which has attained finality does not arise.

Government holds that no refund is admissible under Rule 16A (4) of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 and the impugned Order-in Appeal is thus set aside as not being legal and proper. - Decided in favor of revenue.


← Previous Next →




Discussion Forum
what is new what is new

Let's just recapitulate:

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.