TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the demand was issued under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and therefore subject to time limitation prescribed under this Act. In this regard. Government notes that the adjudicating authority has ordered recovery of erroneously paid drawback under Rule 16 of Drawback Rules where no time limit is prescribed. Respondent has wrongly stated that demand was issued under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. - Decided in favor of revenue. - - - 43/2012-Cus - Dated:- 24-1-2012 - Shri. D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, for the Assessee. [Order]. This revision application is filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Customs House, Chennai against the order-in-appeal No. C. Cus No. 115/2010, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter to pay the demand. Subsequently the exporter filed a writ petition (No. 2524/2005) before the Hon ble High Court of Judicature of Madras. The Hon ble High Court vide order No. 2524/2005, dated 7-11-2006 [2007 (207) E.L.T. 667 (Mad.)] has directed to give fresh dates of hearing. Against the above order, the exporter filed a writ appeal No. (1448/2007) and it is dismissed as withdrawn vide order No. 1448/2007, dated 21-11-2007. 2.4 After due process of law, adjudicating authority held that due to the fact that there is no specific mention of garments made from blended fabrics under S.S.No. 62.09, woollen garments other than the categories of woollen suits/trousers/blazers/jackets therefore exported goods do not fall under S.S.No. 62.01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion could be given retrospective effect is erroneous for the reason that there is nothing in the circular itself that would show that it was meant for matters that have been already decided. The acceptance of the claim made by us and payment of drawback was not provisional. 5.2 They further submitted that the drawback was paid to them in July-August, 1999 and the demand notice was issued purportedly on 23-6-2003 after a good four years. The ground of delay that was raised before the appellate authority was rejected under a wrong premise that the demand was not under Section 28 of the Customs Act but was one under Rule 16 of the Customs Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. The rejection of the ground of delay is per se erroneo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tur. 2011 (270) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.) - C.C.E., Mumbai v. RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. 2006 (198) E.L.T. 563 (Tri. Chennai) - C.C.E., Madurai v. TTK Textiles Ltd. 6. Personal hearings in this case was fixed on 30-9-2011 and 12-12-2011. Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent who reiterated their submissions as mentioned at para 5 above. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 8. On perusal of records, it is observed that respondent had exported woven woollen ladies vests vide 5 shipping bills and claimed drawback of duty under S.S. No. 62.01. The total drawback claim of Rs. 5,14,694/- was sanctioned and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified that sub-serial No. 62.01 of the Drawback Table is not applicable to Woollen Readymade Garments. It is also clarified that S.S.No. 62.09 is applicable to only woollen Suits/Trousers/Blazers/Jackets, therefore, woollen Garments other than these categories are not covered by any of the S.S.Nos. of Drawback Table and hence the exporters can only claim Brand Rate for the same. The clarification issued by C.B.E. C. cannot be held to be applicable prospectively as it has not effected any change in the drawback schedule but only clarified the scope of sub-serial No. 62.09 for the guidance of all the concerned. Hon ble High Court, Karnataka has held in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore v. Central Manufacturing Technology Institute reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
