9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The petitioner was aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 21 March, 2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the operative order of which reads thus: "ORDER 6. I confirm the demand of Drawback amount Rs. 46,79,269/- to be recovered from the said Exporter as per the said Demand cum Notice issued to the said exporters with applicable interest under Rule 16(A) Sub-Rule (1) & (2) of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995 read with section 75A(2) Customs Act, 1962. 7. As per Rule 16(A) Sub-Rule (1) & (2) of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, the Exporter is under obligations to produce evidence to show that the sale proceeds (foreign exchange) in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, I find that the CBEC vide Circular No. 993/17/2014- Cx dated 05.01.2015 has clarified that drawback, like rebate in Central Excise, is refund of duty suffered on the export goods. Section 129 E stipulates that appellant filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) shall pay 7.5% of the duty demanded where duty and penalty are in dispute. Hence, mandatory pre-deposit would be payable in cases of demand of drawback as the new Section 129 E would apply to such cases. 7. In view of the position stated above, I find that as the appellant has failed to deposit 7.5% of the amount demanded on account of duty drawback and penalty imposed vide impugned order , the present appeal is liable for rejection. As the impugned appeal is not mainta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more PH then they would have arranged the payment of pre-deposit and hence the impugned Order-in- Appeal was a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and hence was required to be set aside; (e) That the right to prefer an appeal is a statutory right touching the substantive right of the parties, while the provisions relating to predeposit is procedural in nature and that the procedural law is only a handmaid of justice and not the mistress of justice; that having regard to the huge amount of pre-deposit to be made and also having regard to their financial hardship the impugned Order-in-Appeal should be set aside; they relied on the case of Venus Electronics and Control Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC. Kandla (2006 (198) ELT 547 (Tri Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner in the Revision Application, the Revisional Authority merely on the ground that the petitioner has not made pre-deposit of 7.5%, rejected the petitioner's revision application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in supporting the prayers as made in the petition, that is, to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority as also by the Revisional Authority and to enable the petitioner to argue the appeal on merits, has contended that the petitioner has already made the pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 3,58,445/-. It is his contention that the petitioner has bona fide pointed out the financial difficulties and specific ground in that regard has been urged, which has not been taken into consideration by the orders passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
