9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the second appellant has been quashed. The appellants have been directed to calculate the amount of drawback available to the respondent in respect of the goods exported by them. The writ petition was filed in the following circumstances : 2. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture and export of insulated copper strips and rectangular paper covered conductors. According to the respondent, the two raw materials that go into the manufacture of the above products are insulation paper and copper. The insulation paper required for their manufacture is imported by the respondent. However, the second ingredient copper that goes into the manufacture of their products is procured indigenously from local producers. Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawback, under Rule 6 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). The second respondent considered the contentions of the respondent and by Ext. P9 order, held that they were not entitled to any drawback, as claimed by them. It was aggrieved by Ext. P9 that the respondent had filed the writ petition. 3. The writ petition was contested by the appellants. A counter affidavit was filed taking up a contention that, the respondent had not imported copper or paid any customs duty. They had procured copper in the indigenous market after paying excise duty. They have got credit for the duty paid by them under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Inasmuch as no customs dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per strips and rectangular paper covered conductors, for the production of which copper rods are used as raw material. According to the learned counsel, copper imported in its raw form or concentrated copper or as copper scrap are converted into copper rods that come in rolls. The said manufacturing process is undertaken by other manufacturers from whom the copper rods are purchased by the respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel that, the process undertaken by the respondent is merely to reduce such copper rods to the specifications insisted upon by their customers and to insulate them by either using paper or other materials. Inasmuch as copper rods themselves are manufactured products, it is pointed out that copper is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot answer the all industry rates under Rule 3 of the Rules, they had approached the second respondent for having the rate of their drawback fixed under Rule 6 of the Rules. However, the second appellant by Ext. P9 held that the respondent was not entitled to claim drawback at all. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Cenvat credit availed by them represents only the additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, whereas the drawback claimed by them is in respect of the basic customs duty leviable under Section 2 of the said Act, to which they are entitled in view of the concept of deemed import introduced by Ext. P7. Therefore, Ext. P9 has, according to the learned counsel, been rightly interfered wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares that the whole of the material specified in the Table annexed hereto as is contained in the goods manufactured in India and exported outside India shall, for the purpose of sub-section (1) of the said Section 75, be deemed to be imported material." (emphasis supplied) What has been declared by Ext. P7 notification is that, "the whole of the material specified in the table annexed hereto as is contained in the goods manufactured in India and exported outside India" shall be deemed to be imported material. Therefore, the deeming provision is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rate of drawback applicable to the respondent. It is not in dispute that, no rate under Rule 3 of the Rules has been fixed in respect of the products manufactured and exported by the respondent. Therefore, the rate applicable to the respondent would have to be determined separately under Rule 6 of the Rules. In Ext. P9, the second respondent has proceeded on the basis that fixation of the rate under Rule 6 should be only on the basis of the actual customs duty suffered by the product. We have already held that the said reasoning is not sustainable in view of the clear wording in Ext. P7 notification. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the rate of drawback applicable to the respondent's product would have to be fixed in exercise of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
