9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of the export consignments. The duty draw back claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority against which the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the drawback claims on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish that the goods imported under advance licenses were not utilised on manufacture of exported goods on which duty drawback is claimed. Hence this appeal. 2. The adjudicating authority has rejected refund claims on various grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, has observed that there is no need to go in depth on other grounds on which the lower authority rejected the drawback claim as the appellant has failed to establish that goods imported unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim for drawback and therefore the drawback claims are within time. The Ld. Counsel submitted that whatever goods were manufactured using Advance License were exported out of India and that the appellant had fulfilled the export obligation. That therefore it is clear that appellant has not used the inputs imported by Advance License to manufacture goods cleared to SEZ on which drawback claim is made. He emphasized on the point that the Department has failed to take note of the fact that appellant has fulfilled the export obligation which is one of the major condition, while using the Advance License. 5. The Ld. AR Shri. Arun Kumar appearing for the Department submitted that the appellant has imported inputs using Advance License. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back through jurisdictional Central Excise officer as there was an administrative Circular in this regard (Board Circular No. 43/2007-Cus dated 15.12.2007). The appellant along with a letter, then presented the claim to the concerned Central Excise officer. As per the endorsement of SEZ office, the goods were received into SEZ on 21.10.2011. The claim was presented to Central Excise officer on 03.01.2013. The original authority has therefore put forward the ground of time bar. Computing from the date of presenting the drawback claim to the Central Excise officer. Rule 13 makes it clear that manual application for drawback is not necessary. It is also expressly provided that triplicate copy of Shipping Bill is deemed to be a drawback claim. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacture of goods which have been exported to SEZ unit and therefore draw back cannot be allowed. 9. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the goods exported are manufactured using 27 different inputs and out of this only 5 inputs were imported by the appellant. That these five inputs were procured in three different manner. By import under Advance License, by import on payment of duty and by purchase on payment of duty. That the export goods are not wholly manufactured from duty free inputs and therefore 2nd proviso to Rule 3(1) is not attracted. He submitted that only small percentage of 5 inputs were imported without duty under Advance License. That it is difficult to identify a particular input imported under Advance Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
