Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. V.R.A. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana

2015 (11) TMI 1154 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Conversion of Bill of Exports from DFIA to Drawback - request for conversion was rejected on the basis of Circular No.13/10 of Customs dated 23/9/2010 wherein it is stated that the request has to be made within three months from the date of Let Export Order - Held that:- Commissioner is empowered to allow drawback on shipping bills which may not contain any of these details. The provisions of Rule 12 (1) of custom and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rule, 1995 empowers the Commissioner to condone .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he decision rendered in the appellant s own case [2014 (8) TMI 772 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/52646/2015-CU[SM] - Final Order No. 52935/2015 - Dated:- 22-9-2015 - Hon ble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Sumit Wadhwa, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M. R. Sharma, DR ORDER Per Sulekha Beevi C.S. The appellant who is an exporter of raw cotton of CTH 5201 applied for Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) to DGFT and they .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or ₹ 16,14,79,968/- under DFIA Bill of Exports. The export was only to Pakistan and according to the appellant, as the prices of Indian cotton were higher compared to international market, due to competition, further exports became not viable and there was no possibility for the appellant to export further quantity to Pakistan. For this reason, the appellant was not able to fulfill the export obligation of ₹ 25 crores. After the exports to Pakistan made under the DFIA, the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to Drawback. This request for conversion was rejected by the Principal Commissioner, Ludhiana vide order dated 24/6/2014. The request for conversion was rejected on the basis of Circular No.13/10 of Customs dated 23/9/2010 wherein it is stated that the request has to be made within three months from the date of Let Export Order (LEO). Being aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the request for conversion of DFIA to Drawback, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. At the time of heari .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant could not fulfill the export obligation to China which was on quota basis. In the present letter requesting for cancellation of DFIA licence, the appellant has stated that the document before the customs was incomplete. Another reason stated by the Commissioner for not following the decision of the Tribunal is that the department has preferred an appeal before the High Court against the above final order passed by the Tribunal. 3. Ld. DR justified the impugned order and also submitted that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onsidered the issue of rejection including that of limitation and held in favour of the appellant. Even if the said judgment is challenged before the High Court, the decision is binding, the facts being identical. As regards the observation of the Commissioner that the appellant had stated in the letter to the DGFT that the documentation before the Customs was incomplete, it is seen that the Commissioner has quoted a part of sentence from the request letter dated 28/6/2014 which is reproduced as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

plied. We further like to mention that no imports against the said DFIA have been made and hence no export obligation exists thereon. 5. On the basis of a part of the sentence as first quoted above, the Commissioner has concluded that the moot reason for request for cancellation of DFIA by the appellant is because the appellant has made improper declaration in the shipping bills at the time of export, which would deny DFIA benefit and that it is not due to the stated fact of unavoidable circumst .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version