TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Notification No. 31/1999-Cus. (N.T.), dated 20-5-1999. Thus the drawback in the instant case should have been claimed by the bulk tea manufacturer who has paid the Excise duty and supplied the impugned goods to the respondent who is a 100% EOU unit in terms of D.G.F.T. Notification No. 39(RE-1)/1997-2002, dated 22-11-2001. Hence the Commissioner (Appeals) findings that 100% EOU unit is eligible for drawback in terms of D.G.F.T. Notification No. 39 (RE-1)/1997-2002, dated 22-11-2001 is erroneous and is set aside - Revision application allowed. - F. No. 380/14/DBK/2017-RA - Order No. 70/2019-Cus - Dated:- 20-12-2019 - Ms. Mallika Arya, Additional Secretary ORDER A Revision Application No. 380/14/DBK/17-RA, dated 22-1-2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l adjudicating authority vide the above mentioned Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of ₹ 10,23,000/- along with applicable rate of interest. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal on the ground that the applicant had paid Excise duty on Bulk Tea procured by them in terms of D.G.F.T. Notification No. 39(RE-1)/1997-2002, dated 22-11-2001 and hence they are eligible for drawback. 3. The instant revision application has been filed mainly on the ground that a 100% EOU unit is not eligible for drawback in terms of Central Board of Excise and Customs Notification No. 31/1999 (N.T.), dated 20-5-1999. The said notification prescribes that the rates of drawback specified in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by them for export purpose. In the instant case Excise duty has been paid by bulk tea manufacturer and supplied to 100% EOU treating the same as deemed export . Therefore, Government is of view that the respondent by no stretch of imagination being a 100% EOU can claim drawback on export goods since drawback is not admissible to a 100% EOU unit in terms of General Notes 2(c) of C.B.E. C. Notification No. 31/1999-Cus. (N.T.), dated 20-5-1999. Thus the drawback in the instant case should have been claimed by the bulk tea manufacturer who has paid the Excise duty and supplied the impugned goods to the respondent who is a 100% EOU unit in terms of D.G.F.T. Notification No. 39(RE-1)/1997-2002, dated 22-11-2001. Hence the Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
