9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of various Models and Capacities for Industrial use on turnkey basis. As the products are huge in size these are shipped in various lots considering the convenience of transportation, requirement on site & part shipments etc. Applicants filed an application for fixation of Brand Rate of Duty Drawback under Rule 6(1)(a) of Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 against export of 18 aforesaid Vapour Absorption Chillers before the Assistant Commissioner (BRU) Central Excise, Pune-I. As the Rule 6(1) applies only to the goods exported where duty drawback was not available under All Industry Rates, the original authority rejected the said drawback claims vide Order-in-Original No. PI/BRU/DII/Thermax/ 261/08/2009, dated 31-7-2009. 3. On being aggrieved by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purpose of manufacturing a complete absorption chiller and their claim consists of all the dutiable imported inputs required for the purpose of manufacturing a complete thermic fluid heater as declared by the exporters in the list thus as per Shipping Bills read in conjunction with enclosed documents confirm the export of chillers in SKD condition. Therefore the respondents department had not only stated this fact of export of 'Complete Chiller/boiler' by them from the very beginning, in their Brand Rate Fixation application before Additional Commissioner (BRU) Pune-I, but had provided relevant documents like Shipping Bills, Customs Invoices, Packing List & Dutiable Inputs List used in manufacturing the complete chiller/boiler as exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead that in the light of the above said G.O.I. Order No. 255/2012-Cus., dated 4-7-2012, the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Pune-I is bad in law & not sustainable hence need to be set aside & quashed. 6. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 20-4-2012, 31-5-2012, 29-6-2012 and 23-7-2012. Shri Robindra Kumar Dash Consultant from R.K. Sharma & Associates Pvt. Ltd. appeared on 23-7-2012 on behalf of the Applicant and reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of the respondent-department. 6.1. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government notes that all the factual details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular No. 26/2005-Cus., dated 8-6-2005. For the sake of proper understanding of issue, the relevant paras 2 & 3 of said circular are reproduced below :- "2. The matter has been examined by the Board. In the Duty Drawback Schedule, 2005-06, notified under Notification No. 36/2005-Customs (N.T.), dated 2nd May, 2005, the tariff items and description of goods have been aligned with the tariff items and description of goods appearing in the first scheduled to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at the four digit level. It has been clearly stated in General Note 2 of the above mentioned notification that General Rules for the interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 shall mutatis mutandis apply for classifying the export go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment notes that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case matter of ITC Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] has held that simple and plain readings should be adhered to. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries [2002 (143) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.)] that C.B.E. & C. circulars are legally binding on the departmental authorities. In this case matter there is no denial to the fact that the declared description of exported products were Industrial boiler and absorption "Chiller" in SKD condition. The boilers chillers is covered under Heading No. 8418 of Duty Drawback Schedule for which All Industry Rate Drawback @ 1.1% is available. The original authority has not considered the said circular while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment has to interpret and implement the rules in a meaningful way so that the exporter gets the maximum benefit eligible as prescribed under the law - Adjudicating authority should have considered the claim made by appellant under Rule 7 ibid if they had satisfied the eligibility under the said rule - Matter remanded for a fresh consideration, [paras 5, 5.1, 6]." The ratio of said judgment is applicable to the instant case and therefore original authority should consider the said applicant under Rule 7(1) ibid. 8.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court also in a number of cases including that of M/s. Suksha International v. UOI [1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.)] has observed that interpretations of unduly restricting substantial export benefit which otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
