TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Certificate produced by the petitioner and give a specific finding as to whether those Bank Realisation Certificates are containing the required particulars for allowing the duty drawback - matter is remitted back to the Original Authority viz., the second respondent herein for passing fresh order - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.9662 of 2014, M.P.No.1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2017 - K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. For Petitioner : Mr. T. Ramesh For Respondents : Mr. V. Sundareswaran ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 18.12.2013, passed by the first respondent, rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995, the exporter has to produce the evidence of realisation of export proceeds and if the exporter fails to produce the evidence, the drawback paid shall be recovered along with interest. In the present case, the petitioner failed to produce the evidence for realization of the export proceeds, which is evident from the failure to produce the Bank Realisation Certificate. The petitioner had not produced the Bank Realisation Certificate and even when an opportunity was given in the denovo adjudication proceedings, the petitioner could not produce the Bank Realisation Certificate. Instead, he produced the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities, cannot be found fault with. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The petitioner was originally sanctioned with a drawback amount of ₹ 54,623/- in respect of Shipping Bill No.38 dated 03.01.2008. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, calling upon them to produce the documentary evidence as a proof of receipt of export proceeds, as contemplated under Rule 16A of the said Rules. According to the petitioner, they filed the Bank Realisation Certificate and Bank Advice Certificate issued by the Indian Bank, Coimbatore as a proof of realisation of export proceeds. When the Adjudicating Authority rejected the contention of the petitioner, they challenged the same before the First Appellate Authority in Appeal No.28 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble as per law. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed. ORDER 06 (a) The appellants are directed to produce the BRC to the lower authority for verification. (b) The lower authority is directed to verify the same as per the guidance given in para 04.1 and allow the duty drawback if any as per law. (c) The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. 8. Perusal of the above order would show that the Bank Realisation Certificate produced before the said Appellate Authority was directed to be accepted as a proof of export, if all required particulars are available therein. The Appellate Authority has also pointed out that such Certificate produced, though not in a prescribed form, can be accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
