9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , they realized that they ought to have filed DEEC-cum-Drawback shipping bill because they had used a large number of inputs, which had discharged the Central Excise duty liability and they failed to claim drawback. In other words, they did not file DEEC-cum-Drawback shipping bills. Therefore, they approached the competent authority for conversion of the shipping bill from the DEEC to DEEC-cum-Drawback shipping bill. This request was originally denied by the department. The concerned Joint Commissioner issued a letter to the effect conveying Commissioner's rejection of their request. The appellants approached the DGFT and sought for a clarification and again requested for a speaking order. Therefore, the Commissioner gave them an opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onversion. The appellants have also relied on a large number of case laws. The Commissioner has stated that those case laws are not relevant and he has tried to distinguish the case laws. 5. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the conversion cannot be just like permitted because in order to avail drawback, the appellants had to fulfill various conditions and it is not known that whether they had availed any Cenvat credit on the inputs. If they had availed Cenvat credit, they would not be eligible for claiming drawback. Therefore, she said that the impugned order is correct and same has to be upheld by the Tribunal. 6. On a very careful consideration of the factual position, we find that the appellants imported certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that procedures are handmaiden and not mistresses of justice. In the present case, the prayer of the appellant with regard to drawback is justified. When major portion of the raw materials used has suffered duty, there is no reason why the drawback should not be granted. The drawback would be granted only if the shipping bill under which the goods are exported is a drawback shipping bill. In the present case, due to inadvertence or ignorance, the appellants failed to file the drawback shipping bill. It is not the case of the department that the appellant cannot claim DEEC benefit for import goods and drawback benefit for goods, which suffered payment of duty. The DEEC scheme is in respect of the goods imported free of duty and the only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
