Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 852 - HC - CustomsDrawback u/s 75 of the CA 1962 - the second ingredient copper that goes into the manufacture of their products is procured indigenously from local producers. Since the products exported by the respondent contained copper, the respondent claimed drawback - powers conferred by Section 75(1A) of CA. Held that: - power u/s 75(1A) is to declare through a notification to be published in the official gazette that the material contained in a particular category of goods exported was imported. The concept of deemed import is to be applied in cases where the conditions stipulated by Section 75(1A) stands satisfied. It is on the basis of such a satisfaction that Ext. P7 notification has been issued. Ext. P7 notification is not under challenge. It is not in dispute that, copper is contained in the manufactured product of the respondent. Therefore, going by the terms of Ext. P7 the respondent is entitled to claim the benefit of Ext. P7. In other words, in terms of Ext. P7 the respondent is entitled to claim that the whole of the copper content in its manufactured product should be treated as “deemed to be imported material”, for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act. Availing of the Cenvat credit also does not disentitle the respondent from claiming the above benefit since there is not such restriction in Ext. P7. Whether it is the “all industry rates” stipulated by Rule 3 of the Rules or what is commonly called “the brand rates” to be fixed under Rule 6 of the Rules, that should apply in computing the rate of drawback applicable to the respondent? - Held that: - the rate applicable to the respondent would have to be determined separately under Rule 6 of the Rules. In Ext. P9, the second respondent has proceeded on the basis that fixation of the rate under Rule 6 should be only on the basis of the actual customs duty suffered by the product - the said reasoning is not sustainable in view of the clear wording in Ext. P7 notification. The rate of drawback applicable to the respondent’s product would have to be fixed in exercise of the powers under Rule 6 of the Rules. Appeal dismissed.
|