TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scheme to another. Further, it is found that in this Circular itself, it is provided that in both drawback scheme and DEPB scheme, the level of examination is the same which shows that the request of the appellant should have been allowed by the authorities below, but both the authorities have rejected the request without considering the Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010. The request for conversion was made within six months from the date of export whereas under Circular No. 36/2010 conversion is allowed if the request for the same is filed within three months from the date of let export order. The said condition of prescribed time limit of three months has been set-aside by various courts including the Jurisdictional High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.02.2010 7535930.00 As per the appellant, they have exported the goods for the first time, and therefore, inadvertently shipping bills were filed under Drawback Scheme where the rate of drawback was 1% whereas the appellant was duly entitled to export under DEPB Scheme at the rate of 9%. On coming to know that the CHA has wrongly filed shipping bills under Drawback Scheme instead of DEBP Scheme, the appellant filed an application dated 08.07.2010 for conversion of shipping bills from drawback to DEPB under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Respondent vide Order dated 28.09.2010 has rejected claim of the appellant taking the view that conversion is allowed where benefit of export promotion scheme cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in any manner. He further submitted that there is no time limit provided under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking conversion of shipping bills from one scheme to another and it is only in Circular No. 36/2010, the time limit of three months from the date of let export order is provided which has been held to be unreasonable and has been set-aside by various Courts including the Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana. He further submitted that the appellant is ready to furnish undertaking that the benefit of drawback which has been availed by the appellant shall be returned alongwith interest. In support of his submissions, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:- i) Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mrs. Becto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quest of the appellant should have been allowed by the authorities below, but both the authorities have rejected the request without considering the Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010. Further, we find that in this case, the request for conversion was made within six months from the date of export whereas under Circular No. 36/2010 conversion is allowed if the request for the same is filed within three months from the date of let export order. 7. Further, we find that the said condition of prescribed time limit of three months has been set-aside by various courts including the Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd., CUSAP-10-2019, Order dated 15.02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
