TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking into consideration the simple and plain reading of the applicable Drawback schedule along with the fact of basic constituent material (i.e. leather), categorization as per council of leather exports, C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 08/2002-Cus., dated 30-1-2002 and facts of maximum coverage/contact areas etc. is of considered opinion that any (additional) re-enforcements, attachment, accessories and components should not form basis of altering the basically qualified classification of impugned export goods herein i.e “Leather Sandals”. there is no legal bar so as not to attach wooden heel to “Ladies Leather sandals with leather neolite sole, heels”, Government sets aside the impugned orders and allows the applicant's claimed Drawback under D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The impugned order does not deal with any of the submissions made by the Applicants on the merits of the case. In other words, the Applicants had made several submissions in the written reply as well as oral arguments. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has chosen to ignore the same completely and pass the impugned cryptic order. Further, the Applicants had relied upon several case laws in support of their submissions. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has completely overlooked the said binding decisions and not given any finding of the same relied upon case of Cyril Lasrado (Dead) v. Juliana Maria Lasarado, 2004 (7) SCC 431. 4.2 It is submitted that the shipping bill No. 4120088 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Show Cause Notice and reasoning are totally illegal. Case laws relied upon :- (i) C.C.E. v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., 2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.). (ii) Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., 2006 (195) E.L.T. 275 (T). (iii) Metal Press India v. C.C.E., 2005 (192) E.L.T. 564 (T). (iv) Philips India Ltd. v. C.C.E., 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1028 (T). (v) Kores (I) Ltd. v. C.C.E., 2004 (169) E.L.T. 117(T). (vi) Manikya Plastichem Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., 2003 (160) E.L.T. 273 (T). (vii) Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom Prod. Coop. Indl. Society v. C.C.E., 1996 (88) E.L.T. 637 (S.C.). (viii) Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.). (ix) Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove submission of the Applicant. 4.7 That is not a dispute that the exported sandals are leather sandals inasmuch as the exported sandals satisfy the criterion of sandals as laid down in Board Circular F. No. 609/25/2002-DBK, dated 30-1-2002. Further, the exported sandals are made up of leather (same description has also been given under the export related documents as well). Moreover, opinion of the Council for leather exports, Mumbai also supports this submission. Hence, the exported sandals will be eligible for Drawback under Sl. No. 640311A only which covers leather sandals. 4.8 It is submitted that the classification under Customs Tariff and claim for Drawback under Drawback schedule are totally independent, i.e. classification und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport goods declared as Ladies Leather Sandals under Drawback S.No. 640311A under claim of Drawback @ 7.5% (Cap Rs. 40/- per Unit). 8. Government after careful analysis of all the submitted grounds by the Applicant although agrees with some of the inherent lapses/errors in the orders of the lower authorities but thinks it proper to proceed to examine and consider the facts and merits of the case in entirety, so as to settle the very basic disputed issue of proper classification of the export goods. In this regard Government after analysis of facts on record and reasoning by the lower authorities viz-a-viz report of council for Leather Exports, C.B.E. C. Circular No. 8/2002-Cus., dated 30-1-2002 and the relevant classification serial N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
