9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : S.K. Mohanty, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13-12-2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur, wherein the request of the appellant for allowing drawback at All Industry Rate was rejected. 2. Brief fact of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Automotive Headlamps, falling und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclaration in terms of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. Thus, the impugned order has concluded that non-filing of drawback declaration was not beyond the control of the appellant and accordingly, is not a fit case for exemption in terms of Rule 12(1)(a) ibid. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Facility for permitting conversion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stry Rates of Drawback. 5. A bare reading of Rule 12(1)(a) ibid and the Circular dated 16-1-2004 issued by the C.B.E. & C. demonstrate that the conversion is permissible, only when the exporter is able to satisfy the Commissioner of Customs that "for reasons beyond his control", the drawback was not claimed. In the present case, documents available in the case file divulge that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its matter for issuance of DFRC. Thus, filing of drawback declaration in respect of the shipping bills was beyond the control of the appellant, since revocation of DEL happened much later. Therefore, in terms of the C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 16-1-2004, the ld. Commissioner of Customs should have considered the case of the appellant and allowed the exemption from observing the provisions contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
