9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R for the Respondent Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. The learned counsel Shri M. Karthikeyan appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have imported shoe soles free of duty under Notification No. 32/97-Cus. dated 1.4.97 for the purpose of job work and they have exported shoes after satisfying the prescribed value addition of 10%. They have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty. Hence, there is no question of the appellants availing double benefit as is being contended on behalf of the Revenue. 3. Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, learned SDR appearing for the Department states that it is the Government s policy not to allow benefits under two different export promotion schemes. He also cites Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules which states that drawback is not admissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e EXIM Policy. Under DGFT s letter dated 21.8.2001, it has been clarified that as the DEPB scheme works on the principle of deemed import content , presuming inputs to be duty-paid, the use of inputs, imported free of cost in terms of Notification No. 32/97 and the resultant product will render such exports ineligible for DEPB benefit. The drawback notifications also stipulate that the rates of dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised and the customs authorities have satisfied themselves that the cost of the soles imported duty-free was not included in the export value and no foreign exchange was paid for the exempted soles and thereafter they have sanctioned drawback/DEPB. 7. The legal provisions and clarifications issued, as stated above, authorizes the customs authorities not to allow drawback/DEPB on exports ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
